I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
10,000+?
Actually, it's more like over 6,000 as of last year according to the Federal programme dealing with things, and non-9/11 but related deaths now total more than 9/11 deaths. The 10000+ related to cancers found so far:
That will rise as time goes on, especially given the level of asbestos in the building. Survey from 2016 estimates c. 500K people were in the danger zone:
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Did you still support Trump and would you vote for him again?
I find this more believable than Baxter. IMO it's underestimating the LibDems' vote share in parts of the 'Blue Wall' (there is no way the LDs are going backwards in Witney, Wantage or the Cotswolds - Wantage is an outside chance of a gain), but whether that translates into actual seats I'm not so sure.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
Your point that he was part of the problem in electing the clown is fair, particularly in light of all the good coverage he gets on here.
But it is easily overshadowed by the fact that he is in the top 1-2% of Tory MPs speaking out effectively and saying enough is enough.
I don't think I actually made that point – but yes, it's a fair point (by whoever did make it!)
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
Perhaps because he is giving Bozo a good kick in the nuts?
I saw that, but has he actually sent in a letter or – better – convened a group to do so?
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
It is not apparent that you are100% sure how democracy works.
No shame there but to boil it down it consists of asking "the people" questions and then they decide one way or another.
David Cameron, speaking directly to the British people, in 2015
“Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'”
'”So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'”
I guess you must have been a 2nd “people’s” voter, hence your squirming embarrassment. Fair enough
It's moot now but there are a lot of people here who like to lecture each other about democracy. As I see it western democracy has its roots in Ancient Greek democracy, notably that of Athens. It is not out of the question to adopt precedent from Ancient Athens. In 427BC the Athenian Assembly, open to all male citizens as soon as they qualified for citizenship, voted to massacre all the Mytileneans. A warship was duly despatched. However, the Athenians saw within a day or two that they had made a mistake and decided to vote again. This time the vote went against the proposition. A fast ship was despatched to catch up with the first and made it in time to countermand the order.
Now, I'm a lawyer, I deal with precedent, and I accept that the experiences of two and a half millennia ago may not be the most persuasive to modern voters. But if the people who invented our democratic tradition could change their minds before a popular vote was implemented, then so could we.
As for the overblown "coup" claims - neither People's Vote nor Jan 6.2021 were attempted coups. A coup a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. In order to achieve that you need to take control of all branches of government and neither had the means or a plan to do that.
I find it extremely dubious to claim that in order for there to be an (attempted) coup you need to (attempt to) take control of ALL branches of government. I see no reason why that should be the case. The presidency has some sovereign executive power, and it's arguably the most powerful individual position in the world. You might argue that attempting to take or remain in the job through violent and illegal means (these conditions were certainly met!) would be ineffective on its own (I would dispute that, but let's go with it), but that doesn't mean it's not an attempted coup. You might argue that the Houses could remove such a "president", but again, that doesn't mean they will.
There is no point arguing with you on this because you will just shout and scream Trumpist but both Glenn Greenwald and Matt Talibi have written very good pieces about why the January 6th riots were not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (as well as the reasons why the Democrats are seeking to turn Jan 6th into some sort of Holy memorial).
No of course it wasn't. The hangman's noose was just for fun as was the policeman who got a fire extinguisher shoved in his face and the lady shot dead by the police while trying to batter down the doors to the chamber and the vice president and elected officials rushed out by armed guards. And the ex president telling the crown to march on Capitol hill and pressuring the VP to not validate the result. Not a coup attempt at all. No what could we all be thinking? Just a friendly little picnic.
Didn't say it was a picnic. Look at what @DougSeal said, that is my view as well. It was a riot and Trump massively outstepped things. But it was not a coup.
Things don't have to be Black or White, they can be shades of grey.
You are deluded. It was coup attempt clear and simple, admittedly many of the rioters were Trumps pawns, but that is obviously the case in many coups. Trump was trying to overturn the result and if not that stop it being declared.
Funny, as I posted before, some of the best (and left-wing) commentators don't agree with your view. But I guess you know more than them:
Maybe you are the deluded one - it might help if you could stop frothing every time you hear the word Trump mentioned. As I said to @Malmesbury, your side has become so wrapped up in hatred, you are even willing to publicly praise Dick Cheney, who truly was a threat to American democracy.
I will even give you an extra bone - it looks like there was Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Only, looks like it was come from Hillary:
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
It is not apparent that you are100% sure how democracy works.
No shame there but to boil it down it consists of asking "the people" questions and then they decide one way or another.
David Cameron, speaking directly to the British people, in 2015
“Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'”
'”So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'”
I guess you must have been a 2nd “people’s” voter, hence your squirming embarrassment. Fair enough
It's moot now but there are a lot of people here who like to lecture each other about democracy. As I see it western democracy has its roots in Ancient Greek democracy, notably that of Athens. It is not out of the question to adopt precedent from Ancient Athens. In 427BC the Athenian Assembly, open to all male citizens as soon as they qualified for citizenship, voted to massacre all the Mytileneans. A warship was duly despatched. However, the Athenians saw within a day or two that they had made a mistake and decided to vote again. This time the vote went against the proposition. A fast ship was despatched to catch up with the first and made it in time to countermand the order.
Now, I'm a lawyer, I deal with precedent, and I accept that the experiences of two and a half millennia ago may not be the most persuasive to modern voters. But if the people who invented our democratic tradition could change their minds before a popular vote was implemented, then so could we.
As for the overblown "coup" claims - neither People's Vote nor Jan 6.2021 were attempted coups. A coup a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. In order to achieve that you need to take control of all branches of government and neither had the means or a plan to do that.
I find it extremely dubious to claim that in order for there to be an (attempted) coup you need to (attempt to) take control of ALL branches of government. I see no reason why that should be the case. The presidency has some sovereign executive power, and it's arguably the most powerful individual position in the world. You might argue that attempting to take or remain in the job through violent and illegal means (these conditions were certainly met!) would be ineffective on its own (I would dispute that, but let's go with it), but that doesn't mean it's not an attempted coup. You might argue that the Houses could remove such a "president", but again, that doesn't mean they will.
There is no point arguing with you on this because you will just shout and scream Trumpist but both Glenn Greenwald and Matt Talibi have written very good pieces about why the January 6th riots were not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (as well as the reasons why the Democrats are seeking to turn Jan 6th into some sort of Holy memorial).
No of course it wasn't. The hangman's noose was just for fun as was the policeman who got a fire extinguisher shoved in his face and the lady shot dead by the police while trying to batter down the doors to the chamber and the vice president and elected officials rushed out by armed guards. And the ex president telling the crown to march on Capitol hill and pressuring the VP to not validate the result. Not a coup attempt at all. No what could we all be thinking? Just a friendly little picnic.
Didn't say it was a picnic. Look at what @DougSeal said, that is my view as well. It was a riot and Trump massively outstepped things. But it was not a coup.
Things don't have to be Black or White, they can be shades of grey.
If the "rioters" had taken the chamber and lynched Pelosi, Pence and Co. would Trump have accepted the invitation to remain President? We shall never know, but most people instinctively believe he would have accepted, probably including Trump.
He is therefore no longer President because the COUP failed.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
Yep, I’m with you Richard, My vote, even on the morning, was finely balanced. My wallet and a large part of my head said Remain, another large part of my head and nearly of my heart said Leave. I genuinely decided on the day, after much agonising
But one thing was clear in my mind: whatever the result, respect it. For good and bad
If it had been Remain then, frankly, I would probably be the biggest euro-Federalist on PB by now. The EU only makes sense if you got for full on Federalism. Fiscal distribution, one bank, join the euro, get on with it, free movement yay
The idea of having a 2nd vote to cancel and avoid the first would have appalled me - and people like Farage, if they’d asked for it, would have been peripheral and ludicrous
But we chose otherwise
You think that - in the event of a Remain victory - a second vote would have appalled Farage?
Are you on crack?
No, but he would have become a very marginal antiquated figure. A Jacobite in the late 18th century
This is very different to what happened post-2016, when much of the British Establishment conspired to overthrow the biggest vote in British history
This is simply the case
Still banging on about Brexit - and it's the rest of us that are bores ?
Leon quite convincingly convinced us all the other day it is us Remainers that keep banging on about it (whilst on every topic he discussed from UFOs to Wokism and Sri Lanka to Gin it was still all about Brexit apparently)
Leon is partly right.
New Yougov finds 60% of Leavers and 70% of Tory voters think the media have been talking about No 10 lockdown gatherings too much.
You can argue the other way, though: Leavers are willing to ignore all evidence of Johnsonian malfeasance because he delivered their precious Brexit. Or more generally, people who support X don't like it when the media attack X. Hardly a surprise. Anyway, Brexit is so boring. It's a shit sandwich, but there's nothing new to say about it.
The Guardian posted an interesting comment piece that concluded Brexit had neither been a failure or a success and I agree, but there is plenty of room to improve our relationship with the EU that does not involve rejoining
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Another issue would dominate the news, certainly.
But that simply isn't the same as it being forgotten. It has dominated the news for a good two months, the Tories have slumped in the polls to Labour, they suffered a monumental shellacking by the Lib Dems in a by-election, and Johnson himself has his reputation in the toilet.
You would personally like it to be forgotten, feel it's all terribly unfair to the PM and so on. But it's pure fantasy on your part to dismiss it for week after week as Westminster village fluff and to claim that, just because news agendas change, the damage to Johnson's position of the sustained, horrific negative PR isn't substantial, real, and lasting.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Did you still support Trump and would you vote for him again?
I'd prefer he didn't run again - he is too divisive and he would cause too many problems. It wouldn't be good for the States.
However, if it came to Trump v Biden (and even more Harris), the answer is yes. The basis for supporting for him in November 2020 was that you get to choose between two candidates and you go for the one you think would who do best. And, yes, I would still stand by that, especially given Biden's performance so far. Personally, I don't think we would be in the mess we are in - looking at possible invasions of Ukraine and Taiwan, the economic issues etc - if he was President.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
I think Johnson and Sunak would be perfectly happy with a Starmer led labour Party in government and a Steve Baker led Conservative party in opposition.
I just don’t understand it. We were told by anonymous sources and No10 shills that Johnson “won the room round” and “it was back to maximum Boris, election-winning Boris”
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
Your point that he was part of the problem in electing the clown is fair, particularly in light of all the good coverage he gets on here.
But it is easily overshadowed by the fact that he is in the top 1-2% of Tory MPs speaking out effectively and saying enough is enough.
I don't think I actually made that point – but yes, it's a fair point (by whoever did make it!)
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
I do not agree with you
@NickPalmer is very well respected on here with many of us enjoying his posts while being very different politically
Both @NickPalmer and @Tissue price, when he posted, add greatly to the site
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
It is not apparent that you are100% sure how democracy works.
No shame there but to boil it down it consists of asking "the people" questions and then they decide one way or another.
David Cameron, speaking directly to the British people, in 2015
“Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'”
'”So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'”
I guess you must have been a 2nd “people’s” voter, hence your squirming embarrassment. Fair enough
It's moot now but there are a lot of people here who like to lecture each other about democracy. As I see it western democracy has its roots in Ancient Greek democracy, notably that of Athens. It is not out of the question to adopt precedent from Ancient Athens. In 427BC the Athenian Assembly, open to all male citizens as soon as they qualified for citizenship, voted to massacre all the Mytileneans. A warship was duly despatched. However, the Athenians saw within a day or two that they had made a mistake and decided to vote again. This time the vote went against the proposition. A fast ship was despatched to catch up with the first and made it in time to countermand the order.
Now, I'm a lawyer, I deal with precedent, and I accept that the experiences of two and a half millennia ago may not be the most persuasive to modern voters. But if the people who invented our democratic tradition could change their minds before a popular vote was implemented, then so could we.
As for the overblown "coup" claims - neither People's Vote nor Jan 6.2021 were attempted coups. A coup a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. In order to achieve that you need to take control of all branches of government and neither had the means or a plan to do that.
I find it extremely dubious to claim that in order for there to be an (attempted) coup you need to (attempt to) take control of ALL branches of government. I see no reason why that should be the case. The presidency has some sovereign executive power, and it's arguably the most powerful individual position in the world. You might argue that attempting to take or remain in the job through violent and illegal means (these conditions were certainly met!) would be ineffective on its own (I would dispute that, but let's go with it), but that doesn't mean it's not an attempted coup. You might argue that the Houses could remove such a "president", but again, that doesn't mean they will.
There is no point arguing with you on this because you will just shout and scream Trumpist but both Glenn Greenwald and Matt Talibi have written very good pieces about why the January 6th riots were not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (as well as the reasons why the Democrats are seeking to turn Jan 6th into some sort of Holy memorial).
No of course it wasn't. The hangman's noose was just for fun as was the policeman who got a fire extinguisher shoved in his face and the lady shot dead by the police while trying to batter down the doors to the chamber and the vice president and elected officials rushed out by armed guards. And the ex president telling the crown to march on Capitol hill and pressuring the VP to not validate the result. Not a coup attempt at all. No what could we all be thinking? Just a friendly little picnic.
Didn't say it was a picnic. Look at what @DougSeal said, that is my view as well. It was a riot and Trump massively outstepped things. But it was not a coup.
Things don't have to be Black or White, they can be shades of grey.
If the "rioters" had taken the chamber and lynched Pelosi, Pence and Co. would Trump have accepted the invitation to remain President? We shall never know, but most people instinctively believe he would have accepted, probably including Trump.
He is therefore no longer President because the COUP failed.
We are never going to agree on this. Hell, what about if Trump had an explosive device, and he gave it to the rioters, and then, and then etc etc.
But let's take this to its logical conclusion - do you want Trump banned and the GOP banned, as Germany did with the Nazis post-1945. You clearly see them as a threat to democracy so why would you not vote for them to be banned?
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
I do not agree with you
@NickPalmer is very well respected on here with many of us enjoying his posts while being very different politically
Both @NickPalmer and @Tissue price, when he posted, add greatly to the site
Indeed, and very polite with it even when he gets attacked.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
I would say Nick is held in at least equally high esteem by the "PB old timers" including myself. A top bloke! Quite a few PBers, (not me) campaigned for Nick when he was contesting his Broxtowe seat at the last two General Elections he fought, including some non Labour party members, I think. PtP and perhaps John O might have been among those to have done so??
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
Nick is a great poster, has always been open to honest debate about his politics and made no secret of being an MP
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He is an Only Connect champion, which automatically elevates him to the Pantheon.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He is an Only Connect champion, which automatically elevates him to the Pantheon.
He was also on Deal or no deal in March 2006 and won £25,000.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
You seem very down on him. Nobody has said in terms that they want to have his babies, but he has twice in the past 4 months smashed it out of the park, once by speaking out on Paterson 24 hours before Paterson unravelled, and once yesterday. I would be aware of him independently of his PBing because of those two incidents: the combination of being morally right, politically ahead of the game, and all over the telly, is not something you hit on by accident. Not twice anyway. I don't know if the Spectator still does a backbencher of the year award, but if it does he's a shoo in.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Watching him in Kiev he is a national embarrassment and his mps have no excuse not to send in their letters
Looks like a row is looming at PMQs tomorrow over his ridiculous allegation over Savile and let's hope more letters go in after he is shamed again
This is the most painful chapter in the conservative party recent history and his toxicity is polluting the whole party to the point it may not be recoverable, especially after 14 years
Maybe labour's time is coming and for the first time since Blair I will be looking at their manifesto in 24, as long as I keep taking my pills
@garystreeterSWD tells @BBCDevon he is wrestling with his conscience Hey! How did you get in?! I told you not to come round here again! [the two scuffle]
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
And you appear to be comparing Boris to Churchill - and anyone who might replace him to someone who might make peace with Hitler.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
Your point that he was part of the problem in electing the clown is fair, particularly in light of all the good coverage he gets on here.
But it is easily overshadowed by the fact that he is in the top 1-2% of Tory MPs speaking out effectively and saying enough is enough.
I don't think I actually made that point – but yes, it's a fair point (by whoever did make it!)
It is unmitigated codswallop because he was elected in 2019, so had no hand beyond presumably being a Party member in the election of Pig Dog as PM.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
It is not apparent that you are100% sure how democracy works.
No shame there but to boil it down it consists of asking "the people" questions and then they decide one way or another.
David Cameron, speaking directly to the British people, in 2015
“Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'”
'”So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'”
I guess you must have been a 2nd “people’s” voter, hence your squirming embarrassment. Fair enough
It's moot now but there are a lot of people here who like to lecture each other about democracy. As I see it western democracy has its roots in Ancient Greek democracy, notably that of Athens. It is not out of the question to adopt precedent from Ancient Athens. In 427BC the Athenian Assembly, open to all male citizens as soon as they qualified for citizenship, voted to massacre all the Mytileneans. A warship was duly despatched. However, the Athenians saw within a day or two that they had made a mistake and decided to vote again. This time the vote went against the proposition. A fast ship was despatched to catch up with the first and made it in time to countermand the order.
Now, I'm a lawyer, I deal with precedent, and I accept that the experiences of two and a half millennia ago may not be the most persuasive to modern voters. But if the people who invented our democratic tradition could change their minds before a popular vote was implemented, then so could we.
As for the overblown "coup" claims - neither People's Vote nor Jan 6.2021 were attempted coups. A coup a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. In order to achieve that you need to take control of all branches of government and neither had the means or a plan to do that.
I find it extremely dubious to claim that in order for there to be an (attempted) coup you need to (attempt to) take control of ALL branches of government. I see no reason why that should be the case. The presidency has some sovereign executive power, and it's arguably the most powerful individual position in the world. You might argue that attempting to take or remain in the job through violent and illegal means (these conditions were certainly met!) would be ineffective on its own (I would dispute that, but let's go with it), but that doesn't mean it's not an attempted coup. You might argue that the Houses could remove such a "president", but again, that doesn't mean they will.
There is no point arguing with you on this because you will just shout and scream Trumpist but both Glenn Greenwald and Matt Talibi have written very good pieces about why the January 6th riots were not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (as well as the reasons why the Democrats are seeking to turn Jan 6th into some sort of Holy memorial).
No of course it wasn't. The hangman's noose was just for fun as was the policeman who got a fire extinguisher shoved in his face and the lady shot dead by the police while trying to batter down the doors to the chamber and the vice president and elected officials rushed out by armed guards. And the ex president telling the crown to march on Capitol hill and pressuring the VP to not validate the result. Not a coup attempt at all. No what could we all be thinking? Just a friendly little picnic.
Didn't say it was a picnic. Look at what @DougSeal said, that is my view as well. It was a riot and Trump massively outstepped things. But it was not a coup.
Things don't have to be Black or White, they can be shades of grey.
If the "rioters" had taken the chamber and lynched Pelosi, Pence and Co. would Trump have accepted the invitation to remain President? We shall never know, but most people instinctively believe he would have accepted, probably including Trump.
He is therefore no longer President because the COUP failed.
We are never going to agree on this. Hell, what about if Trump had an explosive device, and he gave it to the rioters, and then, and then etc etc.
But let's take this to its logical conclusion - do you want Trump banned and the GOP banned, as Germany did with the Nazis post-1945. You clearly see them as a threat to democracy so why would you not vote for them to be banned?
I find this more believable than Baxter. IMO it's underestimating the LibDems' vote share in parts of the 'Blue Wall' (there is no way the LDs are going backwards in Witney, Wantage or the Cotswolds - Wantage is an outside chance of a gain), but whether that translates into actual seats I'm not so sure.
Ta. Never even heard of it. Looks plausible.
On previous thread, I concur that 4 SNP gains from SLD looks unlikely. But please note that with North East Fife taking in a big chunk of the old Glenrothes, the Lib Dems will be even more dependent on SCon and SLab tactical votes. The SLabs might, but some SCons will be mighty unhappy. The SLabs might break more to SNP than to SLD.
Caithness et al is probably a goner.
Edinburgh West ought to be safe, however the incumbent is a total duffer.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
@garystreeterSWD tells @BBCDevon he is wrestling with his conscience Hey! How did you get in?! I told you not to come round here again! [the two scuffle]
He's doing well - a lot of MPs have no acquaintance with their conscience whatsoever.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
"Look, people really like it when you go just a bit early! You know, steely jawed, faraway look in your eyes! Before they get to the point when they sitting round in pubs and say "Oh, that f***er's got to go!”"
"You surprise them! "Blimey, he's gone! I didn't expect that! Resigned! You don't see THAT much anymore! Old school! Respect! I rather liked the guy! He was hounded out by the f***ing press!" How about that, ah? What a way to go! Yeah?"
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
And you appear to be comparing Boris to Churchill - and anyone who might replace him to someone who might make peace with Hitler.
It's fairly clear who is the ass.
Absolutely not. BJ isn't 1/100th of the man WSC was. But plenty of people called him the things they are calling BJ today.
Surely the fact the Tory Party is divided is what is keeping Johnson in power. You want a remainer patrician to succeed him, others want a Thatcherite brexiteer, isn't it the prospect of civil war in government and in front the electorate that is staying the hand of many?
"Look, people really like it when you go just a bit early! You know, steely jawed, faraway look in your eyes! Before they get to the point when they sitting round in pubs and say "Oh, that f***er's got to go!”"
"You surprise them! "Blimey, he's gone! I didn't expect that! Resigned! You don't see THAT much anymore! Old school! Respect! I rather liked the guy! He was hounded out by the f***ing press!" How about that, ah? What a way to go! Yeah?"
That is one of the bits that is merely true. It certainly worked for Peter Mandlebrot in his serial resignations from the Cabinet......
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
Surely the fact the Tory Party is divided is what is keeping Johnson in power. You want a remainer patrician to succeed him, others want a Thatcherite brexiteer, isn't it the prospect of civil war in government and in front the electorate that is staying the hand of many?
I don't care who succeeds him, as long as he is gone
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
Explain your thought process behind this? It doesn't follow at all.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
Wales voted for Brexit too and the Tories got a higher voteshare in Wales than in London in 2019.
The DUP backed Brexit and were still largest party in NI in 2019.
Scotland did not but then again only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 either
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
And you appear to be comparing Boris to Churchill - and anyone who might replace him to someone who might make peace with Hitler.
It's fairly clear who is the ass.
Absolutely not. BJ isn't 1/100th of the man WSC was. But plenty of people called him the things they are calling BJ today.
I think 1/100 is far too complimentary to Johnson. The things Churchill had achieved in life before becoming PM were 100 times more interesting than most mortals achieve in their entire lives. He obviously had faults, but being a lying lazy incompetent twat was not one of them.
Surely the fact the Tory Party is divided is what is keeping Johnson in power. You want a remainer patrician to succeed him, others want a Thatcherite brexiteer, isn't it the prospect of civil war in government and in front the electorate that is staying the hand of many?
I don't care who succeeds him, as long as he is gone
Quite honestly, I don't see you rowing in behind a Baker/Harper brave new world, but fair enough!
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Made my day, John. Haven't stopped smiling since I read it.
Yes, Stewart was a one off. PB should arrange for a statue of him to be erected, even if only so we could enjoy watching it toppled one day.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
See my comment towards the end of the last thread. I think it's a deliberate dead cat and we should decline to even discuss it, because the whole idea is likely to be that we talk about that instead of Partygate.
Didn't see your comment Nick but I agreed with you re the deliberate dead cat theory for several reasons (some of our thoughts may overlap, some may not):
1. Starmer was Head of the DPP at the time. Whilst he doesn't look to have a direct link to the case, people will still question whether he could have done more and / or should have intervened as opposed to being hands-off - hurt if you did, hurt if you didn't;
2. If Gray finds that it's civil servants / Carrie who were responsible for the breach but not Johnson, and Starmer states Johnson needs to take responsibility for actions carried out under his roof, Johnson can pivot and say why didn't Starmer do the same when the CPS didn't prosecute Saville and he was its' head? There are obvious differences but most people won't get the nuances;
3. It encourages people / the press to look into other instances of Starmer's legal career / stint at DPP where arguably he does have more to worry about. Michael Ashcroft makes it very clear (as do the victims of Carl Beech) that, while Starmer was not DPP at the time, he very much instituted the policy of "believe every victim" which was at the root of Beech being believed and high-profile victims been subjected to investigation (Afzal also had a role in this, which means his defence of Starmer is not entirely without self-interest). He also defended a number of cases / characters that are unlikely to find much favour amongst more socially conservative voters.
The answer to point 2 is that Starmer did accept responsibility for the decisions made by the CPS and commissioned a review led by Alison Levitt QC. He apologised for the failings she found and instituted changes. So as a leader he accepted responsibility. But no-one found that he personally did anything wrong let alone the insinuation suggested by the PM yesterday. It is this last which is both wrong and offensive.
The contrast with the PM is three-fold: the PM's own conduct is at issue, his apologies do not deal with this at all and he has repeatedly lied about what he knew and did.
Finally, of course the CPS can only do what it can with the resources available to it. The government funds it. If the PM thinks that more should be done he could try funding the criminal justice service properly.
Edited: one further point - part of the reason Savile was not prosecuted because of failings in the police investigation and a dismissive attitude to those alleging crimes against him. The Tory party might ask itself a few tough questions about how far it was responsible for a dismissive attitude to child abuse and the undeserved canonisation of celebrities.
Surely the fact the Tory Party is divided is what is keeping Johnson in power. You want a remainer patrician to succeed him, others want a Thatcherite brexiteer, isn't it the prospect of civil war in government and in front the electorate that is staying the hand of many?
I don't care who succeeds him, as long as he is gone
COVID deaths up slightly on the week before. Non-COVID deaths continue to be pretty good for this time of year (c.1,500 below the five-year average as defined by me). It's hard not to think that a lot of the COVID deaths are now deaths with COVID rather than from it.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
* I'm using 2016 to 2020. The ONS are using 2016 to 2019 and 2021, which seems silly to me. I guess they don't want to switch at the end of March, which is what I will do, and think it's best to have the five-year average inflated by COVID now but then not so much after March.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
Wales voted for Brexit too and the Tories got a higher voteshare in Wales than in London in 2019.
The DUP backed Brexit and were still largest party in NI in 2019.
Scotland did not but then again only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 either
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
And more - he led MPs to believe last night that Lynton Crosby would be working with him closely on the latest ‘relaunch’; it now appears that Crosby won’t be employed in any formal capacity and has simply agreed to give advice over the telephone from Australia, if anyone from the government wants to give him a ring.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
He's shit scared that Carrie will withhold sex, everything takes second place to that drive for Boris getting laid so all UK policy will be what Carrie wants.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Another issue would dominate the news, certainly.
But that simply isn't the same as it being forgotten. It has dominated the news for a good two months, the Tories have slumped in the polls to Labour, they suffered a monumental shellacking by the Lib Dems in a by-election, and Johnson himself has his reputation in the toilet.
You would personally like it to be forgotten, feel it's all terribly unfair to the PM and so on. But it's pure fantasy on your part to dismiss it for week after week as Westminster village fluff and to claim that, just because news agendas change, the damage to Johnson's position of the sustained, horrific negative PR isn't substantial, real, and lasting.
Correct - what the polls show clearly is that the Tory brand can recover and given Starmer's lack of flair and some of his own back story it could recover and win again. However, none of that will happen with a leader so tainted.
- now in a fresh twist the Downing St spokesman has said that Johnson *will* admit if he gets a fine
- but that may not be the case with other staff at Number 10
I find that unlikely, but he might have to, on the grounds that someone in the Met will spill the beans anyway. And I thought that these fines were a matter of public record. TBH I'm more interested in who will pay the fines for junior staff who may well have been effectively forced to attend. And, as I've suggested before, Conservative Central Office will stump up.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
He's shit scared that Carrie will withhold sexrun off with Zac, everything takes second place to that drive for Boris getting laid so all UK policy will be what Carrie wants.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
He's shit scared that Carrie will withhold sex, everything takes second place to that drive for Boris getting laid so all UK policy will be what Carrie wants.
I dunno, he's not been troubled by single-sourcing issues in the past.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
And more - he led MPs to believe last night that Lynton Crosby would be working with him closely on the latest ‘relaunch’; it now appears that Crosby won’t be employed in any formal capacity and has simply agreed to give advice over the telephone from Australia, if anyone from the government wants to give him a ring.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
He's shit scared that Carrie will withhold sex, everything takes second place to that drive for Boris getting laid so all UK policy will be what Carrie wants.
Yes, no question of him looking elsewhere for it. Monogamy is his middle name.
Peter Aldous calls for Boris resignation and has sent in his letter
Let us hope many more do so this week
It does make me wonder how much of the “Boris is safe” spin is true.
If there is somebody who will implement his levelling up, Brexit-benefits mantle the Red Wall were elected on, then not very safe at all.
We must be quite close to a VONC threshold now. There's plenty of Tory MPs who thoroughly disliked Boris even when he won an 80-seat majority. Hard to see why they won't send in a letter.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
There were people in that crowd who came prepared to lead a coup, and they expected that Trump would give the rest of the crowd some direction so that they could act as the vanguard. But that didn’t happen - having whipped up the crowd, Trump baulked at directing what could have become a coup (and may well have saved his legal neck in the process), so the crowd milled around aimlessly and the few guys tooled up with a plan failed, thankfully, to get their act together once inside.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
He's shit scared that Carrie will withhold sex, everything takes second place to that drive for Boris getting laid so all UK policy will be what Carrie wants.
I dunno, he's not been troubled by single-sourcing issues in the past.
He's also not been PM in the past and access to multiple sources were not an issue. I still wonder whether Boris' downfall will be him breaking lockdown rules to make a house call.
I have backed Whyte. Not just because as per usual I like the outsider in a boxing match.
Who has Fury beaten. Well Vlad and Deontay obvs (and Chisora x2). And...
But let's look at those fights - Vlad was seemingly in a coma, perhaps because he took Fury for granted but also because Fury's ringcraft went up a gear and hence it was difficult for Vlad to land - acknowledged by both fighters. But it was a bit of a damp squib which is fine he won it. vs Chisora it was touch and go first time round and more conclusive in the rematch where Chisora had one eye operating for some time. Then of course Wilder. Who by any estimation is super dangerous but is not a boxer. And Fury outboxed him no question. Each time. But, sort of, that's it. There is a flaw in each of those fights one way or another.
Whyte I think has come on a lot these past years from the AJ fight (and the Chisora ones which made it all the more remarkable that he was put down by Povetkin). He has improved immeasurably and I see him as a "better" Chisora who has one hell of a bang in particular of course his left hook plus ringcraft (it's certainly what they will be working on in camp).
Fury, meanwhile is no puncher although as a HW can stop anyone and has done.
So we have Fury good ringcraft, tricky, can punch but not his thing vs an undoubted puncher and better boxer imo than Fury has ever faced.
So it's Whyte for me or at least he is too long at 9/2 (bf).
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
Yep, I’m with you Richard, My vote, even on the morning, was finely balanced. My wallet and a large part of my head said Remain, another large part of my head and nearly of my heart said Leave. I genuinely decided on the day, after much agonising
But one thing was clear in my mind: whatever the result, respect it. For good and bad
If it had been Remain then, frankly, I would probably be the biggest euro-Federalist on PB by now. The EU only makes sense if you got for full on Federalism. Fiscal distribution, one bank, join the euro, get on with it, free movement yay
The idea of having a 2nd vote to cancel and avoid the first would have appalled me - and people like Farage, if they’d asked for it, would have been peripheral and ludicrous
But we chose otherwise
You think that - in the event of a Remain victory - a second vote would have appalled Farage?
Are you on crack?
No, but he would have become a very marginal antiquated figure. A Jacobite in the late 18th century
This is very different to what happened post-2016, when much of the British Establishment conspired to overthrow the biggest vote in British history
This is simply the case
Still banging on about Brexit - and it's the rest of us that are bores ?
Leon quite convincingly convinced us all the other day it is us Remainers that keep banging on about it (whilst on every topic he discussed from UFOs to Wokism and Sri Lanka to Gin it was still all about Brexit apparently)
Leon is partly right.
New Yougov finds 60% of Leavers and 70% of Tory voters think the media have been talking about No 10 lockdown gatherings too much.
You can argue the other way, though: Leavers are willing to ignore all evidence of Johnsonian malfeasance because he delivered their precious Brexit. Or more generally, people who support X don't like it when the media attack X. Hardly a surprise. Anyway, Brexit is so boring. It's a shit sandwich, but there's nothing new to say about it.
The Guardian posted an interesting comment piece that concluded Brexit had neither been a failure or a success and I agree, but there is plenty of room to improve our relationship with the EU that does not involve rejoining
I believe that Guardian article was written by a Brexiteer and Brexit apologist, so hardly balanced. If someone who was in favour of a position describes it as neither a failure or a success then you can conclude it was a pretty bad failure.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
Wales voted for Brexit too and the Tories got a higher voteshare in Wales than in London in 2019.
The DUP backed Brexit and were still largest party in NI in 2019.
Scotland did not but then again only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 either
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
He's shit scared that Carrie will withhold sex, everything takes second place to that drive for Boris getting laid so all UK policy will be what Carrie wants.
Comments
That's the difference.
Edit: I was taking the piss, then read down thread that HY had said this in all seriousness.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/12/more-people-have-now-died-from-9-11-illnesses-than-during-the-attacks/
That will rise as time goes on, especially given the level of asbestos in the building. Survey from 2016 estimates c. 500K people were in the danger zone:
https://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/
See also:
https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/deaths-from-911-diseases-will-soon-outnumber-those-lost-on-that-fateful-day
Figures are from several years ago but
LAB: 312 MPs (+110)
CON: 239 (-126)
SNP: 55 (+7)
LDEM: 20 (+9)
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2022/01/britain-predicts
I find this more believable than Baxter. IMO it's underestimating the LibDems' vote share in parts of the 'Blue Wall' (there is no way the LDs are going backwards in Witney, Wantage or the Cotswolds - Wantage is an outside chance of a gain), but whether that translates into actual seats I'm not so sure.
Well now it’s all over himself
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1488538936343515152
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60218870
I don't think I actually made that point – but yes, it's a fair point (by whoever did make it!)
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-two-authoritarians
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/civil-liberties-are-being-trampled-8bf
Maybe you are the deluded one - it might help if you could stop frothing every time you hear the word Trump mentioned. As I said to @Malmesbury, your side has become so wrapped up in hatred, you are even willing to publicly praise Dick Cheney, who truly was a threat to American democracy.
I will even give you an extra bone - it looks like there was Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Only, looks like it was come from Hillary:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/01/27/what_did_clinton_know_about_the_russiagate_smear_and_when_did_she_know_it_the_evidence_builds_813739.html#!
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
He is therefore no longer President because the COUP failed.
But that simply isn't the same as it being forgotten. It has dominated the news for a good two months, the Tories have slumped in the polls to Labour, they suffered a monumental shellacking by the Lib Dems in a by-election, and Johnson himself has his reputation in the toilet.
You would personally like it to be forgotten, feel it's all terribly unfair to the PM and so on. But it's pure fantasy on your part to dismiss it for week after week as Westminster village fluff and to claim that, just because news agendas change, the damage to Johnson's position of the sustained, horrific negative PR isn't substantial, real, and lasting.
However, if it came to Trump v Biden (and even more Harris), the answer is yes. The basis for supporting for him in November 2020 was that you get to choose between two candidates and you go for the one you think would who do best. And, yes, I would still stand by that, especially given Biden's performance so far. Personally, I don't think we would be in the mess we are in - looking at possible invasions of Ukraine and Taiwan, the economic issues etc - if he was President.
It’s almost like they were talking bollocks designed to secure their own position and access.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1488541250257100805
https://twitter.com/peter_aldous/status/1488538531236560902
@NickPalmer is very well respected on here with many of us enjoying his posts while being very different politically
Both @NickPalmer and @Tissue price, when he posted, add greatly to the site
I disagree with a very great deal of what he says, but he's admirably straightforwards and very helpful in illuminating the political machine.
But let's take this to its logical conclusion - do you want Trump banned and the GOP banned, as Germany did with the Nazis post-1945. You clearly see them as a threat to democracy so why would you not vote for them to be banned?
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible:
"The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all."
but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
But that is not the same as TP
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
Another off the record tells me he is on the verge of doing so & @garystreeterSWD tells @BBCDevon he is wrestling with his conscience. i will have more @BBCNews online -and @BBCRadio4 at 6
https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1488541949829292032
https://twitter.com/peter_aldous/status/1488538531236560902
Looks like a row is looming at PMQs tomorrow over his ridiculous allegation over Savile and let's hope more letters go in after he is shamed again
This is the most painful chapter in the conservative party recent history and his toxicity is polluting the whole party to the point it may not be recoverable, especially after 14 years
Maybe labour's time is coming and for the first time since Blair I will be looking at their manifesto in 24, as long as I keep taking my pills
Hey! How did you get in?! I told you not to come round here again!
[the two scuffle]
It's fairly clear who is the ass.
Johnson's enemies span the whole breadth of the Tory left: left and right, Brexit and Remain, old and young. On the surface, that's dangerous.
https://www.ft.com/content/8d6af9f5-4d23-4884-b2cc-ebe3507166fa
On previous thread, I concur that 4 SNP gains from SLD looks unlikely. But please note that with North East Fife taking in a big chunk of the old Glenrothes, the Lib Dems will be even more dependent on SCon and SLab tactical votes. The SLabs might, but some SCons will be mighty unhappy. The SLabs might break more to SNP than to SLD.
Caithness et al is probably a goner.
Edinburgh West ought to be safe, however the incumbent is a total duffer.
O&S rock solid, irrespective of Holyrood results.
Mordaunt is 3rd, Hunt 4th and Tugenhadt 5th and Baker 6th just ahead of Javid, Gove and Zahawi
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2022/02/what-our-next-tory-leader-survey-tells-us-about-support-for-the-prime-minister.html
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Let us hope many more do so this week
"Look, people really like it when you go just a bit early! You know, steely jawed, faraway look in your eyes! Before they get to the point when they sitting round in pubs and say "Oh, that f***er's got to go!”"
"You surprise them! "Blimey, he's gone! I didn't expect that! Resigned! You don't see THAT much anymore! Old school! Respect! I rather liked the guy! He was hounded out by the f***ing press!" How about that, ah? What a way to go! Yeah?"
Jim Pickard @PickardJE
- now in a fresh twist the Downing St spokesman has said that Johnson *will* admit if he gets a fine
- but that may not be the case with other staff at Number 10
The DUP backed Brexit and were still largest party in NI in 2019.
Scotland did not but then again only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 either
Yes, Stewart was a one off. PB should arrange for a statue of him to be erected, even if only so we could enjoy watching it toppled one day.
The contrast with the PM is three-fold: the PM's own conduct is at issue, his apologies do not deal with this at all and he has repeatedly lied about what he knew and did.
Finally, of course the CPS can only do what it can with the resources available to it. The government funds it. If the PM thinks that more should be done he could try funding the criminal justice service properly.
Edited: one further point - part of the reason Savile was not prosecuted because of failings in the police investigation and a dismissive attitude to those alleging crimes against him. The Tory party might ask itself a few tough questions about how far it was responsible for a dismissive attitude to child abuse and the undeserved canonisation of celebrities.
Just had latest e mail on cabinet league table from conhom and Ben Wallace now tops the poll
Do you ever get anything right
https://tinyurl.com/bdfff5p7
COVID deaths up slightly on the week before. Non-COVID deaths continue to be pretty good for this time of year (c.1,500 below the five-year average as defined by me). It's hard not to think that a lot of the COVID deaths are now deaths with COVID rather than from it.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
24-Sep-21 | 9,264 | 888 | 9,796 | 532
01-Oct-21 | 9,377 | 783 | 9,727 | 350
08-Oct-21 | 9,555 | 666 | 10,141 | 586
15-Oct-21 | 9,811 | 713 | 10,464 | 653
22-Oct-21 | 9,865 | 792 | 10,516 | 651
29-Oct-21 | 9,759 | 859 | 10,128 | 369
05-Nov-21 | 9,891 | 995 | 10,555 | 664
12-Nov-21 | 10,331 | 1,020 | 11,030 | 699
19-Nov-21 | 10,350 | 952 | 11,151 | 801
26-Nov-21 | 10,380 | 817 | 10,650 | 270
03-Dec-21 | 10,357 | 792 | 10,867 | 510
10-Dec-21 | 10,695 | 764 | 11,166 | 471
17-Dec-21 | 10,750 | 755 | 11,645 | 895
24-Dec-21 | 11,548 | 591 | 12,419 | 871
31-Dec-21 | 7,954 | 582 | 7,895 | -59
07-Jan-22 | 12,194* | 922 | 11,340 | -854
14-Jan-22 | 13,387* | 1,382 | 11,929 | -1,458
21-Jan-22 | 12,838* | 1,484 | 11,292 | -1,546
* I'm using 2016 to 2020. The ONS are using 2016 to 2019 and 2021, which seems silly to me. I guess they don't want to switch at the end of March, which is what I will do, and think it's best to have the five-year average inflated by COVID now but then not so much after March.
So check your facts before throwing accusations at me!
Apologies @HYUFD
I will not vote Tory as long as BoZo remains.
I would probably not vote Tory if Baker takes over.
I would consider my position if someone else takes over.
And I thought that these fines were a matter of public record.
TBH I'm more interested in who will pay the fines for junior staff who may well have been effectively forced to attend.
And, as I've suggested before, Conservative Central Office will stump up.
An ongoing shitshow.
Future Tory leaders will try and repair the damage
We must be quite close to a VONC threshold now. There's plenty of Tory MPs who thoroughly disliked Boris even when he won an 80-seat majority. Hard to see why they won't send in a letter.
Whyte is 5.5s, Fury 1.25 (bf).
I have backed Whyte. Not just because as per usual I like the outsider in a boxing match.
Who has Fury beaten. Well Vlad and Deontay obvs (and Chisora x2). And...
But let's look at those fights - Vlad was seemingly in a coma, perhaps because he took Fury for granted but also because Fury's ringcraft went up a gear and hence it was difficult for Vlad to land - acknowledged by both fighters. But it was a bit of a damp squib which is fine he won it. vs Chisora it was touch and go first time round and more conclusive in the rematch where Chisora had one eye operating for some time. Then of course Wilder. Who by any estimation is super dangerous but is not a boxer. And Fury outboxed him no question. Each time. But, sort of, that's it. There is a flaw in each of those fights one way or another.
Whyte I think has come on a lot these past years from the AJ fight (and the Chisora ones which made it all the more remarkable that he was put down by Povetkin). He has improved immeasurably and I see him as a "better" Chisora who has one hell of a bang in particular of course his left hook plus ringcraft (it's certainly what they will be working on in camp).
Fury, meanwhile is no puncher although as a HW can stop anyone and has done.
So we have Fury good ringcraft, tricky, can punch but not his thing vs an undoubted puncher and better boxer imo than Fury has ever faced.
So it's Whyte for me or at least he is too long at 9/2 (bf).
I'm glad that we have common ground on this issue.