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.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
That fat little bloke, you remember him? He that is the only leading politician of these islands with perhaps a more atrocious reputation than Boris Johnson, and was described by his own QC as "a bully and a sex pest" told everyone it was a "once in a generation opportunity". I believe he used to lead the SNP and was First Minister, so I guess he knew what he was saying.
Froim the context, it was quite clear that it was at the end of a 'generation'; we had been waiting that long and more; but obiter dicta are not law, by definition so to speak. Nor is it consistent for you to pick and choose from the sayings of someone whom you obviously despise.
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
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
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.
IOW you admit your slur about Max was nonsense.
Nope, I think if you start passing moral judgements on someone you don't know for their political views, then I think you are wrong Actually, I'd use a much stronger word. This whole moral superiority thing is annoying.
And, yes, I include you in that camp.
Rather depends what the views are and how they are promoted.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
Doesn't your comment actually hint at one of the of the reasons he might do it (other than pure distraction which is surely an element of it)?
There will be some people who say "well, he's the PM so perhaps he has information not in the public domain..." He doesn't, of course - he's just an incorrigible bullsh1tter - but there is certainly a constituency of people out there who think that way.
Oh quite possibly, which makes it all the more shameful, of course. It is an abuse of office (and Parliamentary privilege). The Speaker is absolutely right to call him out on it.
Except he hasn't, he finds it not to be out of order, just not very nice
So presumably in an exchange "You are a facilitator of child molesters" "That is a lie" the first claim is fine, the second can get you suspended. Funny old world.
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.
Just got off a call, hence the delay.
Many people in 1940 considered WSC to be the BJ of the day - incompetent, a grifter to the point of disreputable, a drunk and many things beside, including a political failure. If his career had ended in 1940, he would have been forgotten by now. Halifax, on the other day, was considered someone whose behaviour was, in many ways, beyond reproach. In fact, he was called "The Holy Fox".
But that doesn't follow at all because Winston Churchill was an honourable person. Boris is a liar. Every time he opens his mouth he lies. His attack on Keir Starmer yesterday was another in a series of lies. I don't care about the other stuff, I care that he continually lies and cheats to stay in office just one more day. I care that he's running a permanent whipping operation from Number 10 and burning through political capital to stay in power rather than actually get the country growing faster and getting a handle on the now medium term energy crisis.
Yesterday we had that farce of a session in the house and because Boris was, once again, burning through political capital to stay in power the PM of the UK was unable to speak to Putin on the eve of war. That degrades the office of the PM. He's put his personal survival ahead of the interests of the nation and now we're wholly reliant on France to represent European interests with Putin. Who really knows what Macron and Putin talked about? Who knows what Macron promised Putin?
We have lost our chance to have a sovereign meeting of equals with Russia because the PM was too busy covering up his lies and failures.
So no, it doesn't follow that wanting Boris out is the same as saying Churchill should have been prevented from taking over. In fact I'd say those who want him out are standing up for what's right, and that's something Churchill did in 1940 despite the easy option being appeasement just as those Tory MPs who aren't sending their letters in are taking the easy option of knuckling under.
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?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
Unfortunately Trump supporters are simply right wing fanatics. Those of us with any sort of historical perspective can see it for what it is. I just heard that Boris Johnson stands by his remarks about Starmer even though it has been totally discredited by EVERYONE who who knows the story.
The BBC said it was something posted on a far right website a few years ago. Now we hear Johnson's running with it
Bringing far right goonery to the House of Commons. Lovely jubbly.
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
Nope. It was absolutely moronic to include them in the same line, so it is now almost impossible to benchmark them. Which innumerate idiot in Whitehall thought this was ever a good idea?
We might as well bin the positive tests measure full stop now and just look at the hospitalisation data (although even these are no longer a like-for-like comparison due to the increased number of 'cases' feeding the hospital funnel).
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
I have to say, on glancing yesterday, the seem to have made a sensible job of it, such that we shouldn't get a spurious "rising numbers" panic from the media due to the effects of adding in these numbers.
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?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
And the calculated pitch rolling - to declare a loss as a win - from months out.
And the thing is, he fixated on the wrong thing. He'd have had a stronger case claiming that the unprecedented four-year media campaign against him and/or Zuckerberg's millions made the election not free and/or fair rather than the insane claims that the ballot count didn't match the ballots cast.
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
I have to say, on glancing yesterday, the seem to have made a sensible job of it, such that we shouldn't get a spurious "rising numbers" panic from the media due to the effects of adding in these numbers.
How so when they are – as far as I can ascertain – bundled into the same data line, rather than sequestered?
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.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
Doesn't your comment actually hint at one of the of the reasons he might do it (other than pure distraction which is surely an element of it)?
There will be some people who say "well, he's the PM so perhaps he has information not in the public domain..." He doesn't, of course - he's just an incorrigible bullsh1tter - but there is certainly a constituency of people out there who think that way.
Oh quite possibly, which makes it all the more shameful, of course. It is an abuse of office (and Parliamentary privilege). The Speaker is absolutely right to call him out on it.
Except he hasn't, he finds it not to be out of order, just not very nice
So presumably in an exchange "You are a facilitator of child molesters" "That is a lie" the first claim is fine, the second can get you suspended. Funny old world.
I just don't get why politicians as a class want to make themselves look even more ridiculous, absurd and pointless than they are. But they put considerable effort into it.
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
Nope. It was absolutely moronic to include them in the same line, so it is now almost impossible to benchmark them. Which innumerate idiot in Whitehall thought this was ever a good idea?
We might as well bin the positive tests measure full stop now and just look at the hospitalisation data (although even these are no longer a like-for-like comparison due to the increased number of 'cases' feeding the hospital funnel).
The problem is not in the dashboard, but in their source data.
Trying to get hundreds of arrogant, entitled stakeholders to do the same thing. Cat herding...
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.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
That fat little bloke, you remember him? He that is the only leading politician of these islands with perhaps a more atrocious reputation than Boris Johnson, and was described by his own QC as "a bully and a sex pest" told everyone it was a "once in a generation opportunity". I believe he used to lead the SNP and was First Minister, so I guess he knew what he was saying.
Froim the context, it was quite clear that it was at the end of a 'generation'; we had been waiting that long and more; but obiter dicta are not law, by definition so to speak. Nor is it consistent for you to pick and choose from the sayings of someone whom you obviously despise.
Sorry, but what utter nonsense. It is perfectly consistent. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that one cannot quote the words of a politician one does not like to illustrate a point. Of all those favouring Scottish independence on PB then you are normally the most rational, but I think the "picking and choosing" is your habit here, not mine.
I see that Bas Javid, a senior bod in the Met, is following Cyclefree's 10 Stages of a Crisis playbook in his comments just now on the IOPC Report - he's at stage 4.
To its credit the IOPC has said that this is a significant problem not just 1 or 2 bad apples.
And Priti Patel is saying that there is a problem with the culture in the police
SWEETIE, WHAT TOOK YOU SO FUCKING LONG TO REALISE???
Get one of your SPADS to read this forum and my headers on this topic for the last 3 years and you'd have known this for some time and, even what you need to do about it.
Oh why do I bother? I'd have more fun beating my head against a brick wall. Probably more useful as well.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
No, because reasons.
(Actually, HYUFD has a point that, for all Johnson will pull the Conservative brand over a cliff, there's nobody else out there who will do much better. Short of inventing a time machine, going back to 2019 and not doing the Great Purge, there's not a lot to be done about that.
As with some of the other bad things coming down the track, the point of no return for preventing damage has already passed.)
Mexicanpete, despite being an esteemed PBer, appears to be an outlier re: Starmer's performance yesterday versus Johnson in general, and in particular re: impact of the Saville smear.
Time will tell whether Mp is really an outlier, or a harbinger.
In meantime, just had an idea for a new (sort of) game show: "The Outlier"
Contestants are questioned on their personal views, perspective & knowledge on range of topics. Then their answers are compared and contrasted with audience responses.
Resulting in the dread verdict, broadcast to an eager world - "YOU are The Outlier!"
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?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
And the calculated pitch rolling - to declare a loss as a win - from months out.
And the thing is, he fixated on the wrong thing. He'd have had a stronger case claiming that the unprecedented four-year media campaign against him and/or Zuckerberg's millions made the election not free and/or fair rather than the insane claims that the ballot count didn't match the ballots cast.
I seem to recall he moaned a lot about that too. With rather less justification than similar from Jeremy Corbyn.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
He popped up earlier to note that the Tory score had actually risen a point in this poll, which therefore neutralises the Ten Point Rule.
Mornington Crescent.
"And I see from our bulging inbox that the postman has mixed us up with Sir Graham Brady. But Mrs Trellis of North Wales has no confidence in PM. Bit harsh on Evan Davis, but there you go."
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?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
And the calculated pitch rolling - to declare a loss as a win - from months out.
And the thing is, he fixated on the wrong thing. He'd have had a stronger case claiming that the unprecedented four-year media campaign against him and/or Zuckerberg's millions made the election not free and/or fair rather than the insane claims that the ballot count didn't match the ballots cast.
I seem to recall he moaned a lot about that too. With rather less justification than similar from Jeremy Corbyn.
Mexicanpete, despite being an esteemed PBer, appears to be an outlier re: Starmer's performance yesterday versus Johnson in general, and in particular re: impact of the Saville smear.
Time will tell whether Mp is really an outlier, or a harbinger.
In meantime, just had an idea for a new (sort of) game show: "The Outlier"
Contestants are questioned on their personal views, perspective & knowledge on range of topics. Then their answers are compared and contrasted with audience responses.
Resulting in the dread verdict, broadcast to an eager world - "YOU are The Outlier!"
We really are gone gone gone if that Savile slur does anything except damage Johnson with the electorate.
Oooft - brutal Qs from the BBC to Boris Johnson in Ukraine!
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin... https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
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
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
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.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Now we're talking about whether Starmer actually protected Saville, and not about the fact that Johnson lied to Parliament. Repeatedly.
Anything she says on the subject is slightly undermined by her being another one of his Useful Idiots.
That's not fair at all. I would put Salmond in that camp without hesitation, what with his show on RT and all that. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if some SNP MPs are in Putin's pocket (I also think this about the other main parties of Britain and Northern Ireland). But it really, really doesn't ring true for Sturgeon. I mean, just read the damn article. She's spot on.
I genuinely don't have a problem with people wanting Scottish independence, I really don't. If it is just an excuse (as it seems with a couple of posters on here) to vent their anti-English prejudice/racism then that is another matter.
The problem they have is that they are advancing yet another one of Putin's pet foreign policy objectives. In that sense she falls into that category.
Yes, Russia certainly has a preference for Scottish independence. But that doesn't mean that everyone who also wants it is a "useful idiot". The danger here is you reduce arguments for and against something to arguments about who else is in favour of it. Just because Putin is a staunch Orthodox Christian, doesn't make Bartholomew I of Constantinople one of his useful idiots.
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.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I don't understand how it could ever have worked? Coup needs control of the forces of the state - the police, the army etc. Also the media. How was storming the capitol going to gain control of the army? Of the police?
What happens to the Scons over the next two years if the non-Scottish-constituency Tory MPs continue to resemble some of the less mobile organisms in the tanks at Plymouth Marine Aquarium? Mr Johnson will still be i/c at the next GE - and the next Holyrood election for all I know.
If the members had picked Murdo Fraser rather than Ruth Davidson as leader and split off from the London-based party when things were quiet, they'd be insulated.
Now, if they split off, they're basically admitting that the SNP were right all along to demand independence from Westminster and the UK. Edit: and some other truly Unionist party will be along in a moment to siphon off some of the vote. In fact there's already one - Ms Ballantyne's lot.
But if they don't, they'll be competing with Slab for third place.
How to resolve that, I have no idea.
Perhaps they have already created the required distance. Time will tell.
Doubt it. All they are doing, every tine they say " a big dog left the mess not me" is admitting how shite the governing party of the UK is, every day. And they are the ones who demand subservience to that government.
I love the emotive language "subservience". In the event of Scottish Independence, do you think Orkney should have to show "subservience" to Edinburgh? I mean, surely if the argument that it was "unfair for rUK to have "dragged" Scotland out of EU, surely the same logic is that it is unfair that Glaswegians should "drag" Orkney (and other regions of Scotland) out of UK? I believe some Nats say that the devolved nations should have been able to veto Brexit (and I have some sympathy with that view), so surely the islanders of Orkney should be able to do the same by the same logic?
Orkney isn't a nation. It would be more akin to the occasional oddballs who want an independent Yorkshire.
Except there is a registered Yorkshire Party (isn’t Pb’s Herdson a supporter/member?) while no such equivalent exists for Orkney or Shetland. I suppose the occasional Libdem, tabloid editorial or online Yoon who floats the idea of indy for O&S as a stunning rhetorical argument against Scottish indy would qualify as oddball mind.
There was a brief spasm called Wir Shetland in the 2010s but it seems to have disappeared without trace. Like many ideas it survives more strongly in certain people’s imaginations than in the harsh light of electoral reality.
I hesitate to discuss this in any detail, because this is a polity within a polity than I am not part of, but the concept which is often floated is Orkney and Shetland having an equivalent relationship with the UK as Jersey and Guernsey. Which I can see the attraction of. But the impression I get is that constitutional change is not a particularly hot topic in the far north. The lack of overt enthusiasm for Sindy is at least matched by the lack of overt enthusiasm for any other arrangement. Would be very interesting to hear from anyone with local knowledge - although diverse as we are I don't recall every hearing from an Orcadian or Sheltander on here?
My understanding is from my travels in this part of the world is that a very large proportion of the population are incomers, from both England and mainland Scotland. It is also a tiny permanent population, circa 20k on each. Shetland in particular is beautiful, like a part of Scandinavia in the UK. There is good infrastructure and roads. But also a bit of an unresolved question as to what happens when the oil money runs out. Not sure that that anyone living there thinks Independence would solve these issues, although they could construct a legitimate claim.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Now we're talking about whether Starmer actually protected Saville, and not about the fact that Johnson lied to Parliament. Repeatedly.
Johnson distracting us from talking about how he misled parliament by... misleading parliament. Boris has no brain, just leave him in Ukraine please.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Now we're talking about whether Starmer actually protected Saville, and not about the fact that Johnson lied to Parliament. Repeatedly.
If anyone is to blame for Saville it is the scores of people (allegedly) who knew he was a bit off but did nothing about it at the time. Its facile to say that things were different then, but in a sense they were. We are a lot less tolerant of this kind of stuff now. During my undergrad course the girls all knew that one of the lecturers was somewhat handsy, and warned subsequent years. He would never get away with it now, and the world is better for it. Sadly attitudes in the 70's and 80's were different, and while people probably thought it was wrong, nothing got done about Saville.
- Cases. R is around 1. It is slightly above 1 for the younger groups (less vaccinated) and below 1 for the older groups. - Admissions - down - MV Beds - down - In hospital - down - Deaths - down
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
Oooft - brutal Qs from the BBC to Boris Johnson in Ukraine!
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin... https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
Totally irresponsible question from the BBC.
Ask at home maybe but not in Ukraine when Ukraine is desperately welcoming the support from the UK PM against Putin. All the BBC have done by that question is strengthen Putin
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:
Good grief that was a mind boggling post. Are you on something?
a) Apparently I am publicly willing to praise Dick Cheney. Eh. I have never mentioned him. To the best of my knowledge I have never mentioned him here, ever.
b) I'm frothing about Trump. Eh again. Where?
c) You refer to 'my side'. Just out of interest what do you think my side is? You make reference earlier to left-wingers. You clearly don't know what my politics are because I am not a left winger. Never voted Labour for instance in my life. If you mean by 'left wing' and 'my side' that I'm to the left of fascism then I'll plead guilty to that.
d) If you can't tell that was attempted coup then you clearly are the deluded one. The crowd invaded the county's parliament, tried to stop a president being appointed, the elected representatives had to flee for their lives, people were killed and arms drawn and all encouraged by the person who wanted to take power and when he had the opportunity to stop it refused for sometime.
And that wasn't an attempted coup? I think I will be putting you in the Fascist camp if you don't mind if you support that or even consider it to be anything other than an attempt to overthrow an election. I mean Trump has not even denied he wanted Pence to do it. And your reference to 'my side' when it is the view for instance of just about all (if not all) the Tories on this site does put you rather at the extreme right (or bonkers, and I would go with bonkers if I were you).
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.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I don't understand how it could ever have worked? Coup needs control of the forces of the state - the police, the army etc. Also the media. How was storming the capitol going to gain control of the army? Of the police?
He had been firing senior army officials and replacing them with loyalists in the weeks beforehand. Those resigning from top ranks in the military specifically warned of potential coups and reminded soldiers of their loyalty to the constitution and law ahead of their loyalty to the President.
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.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I don't understand how it could ever have worked? Coup needs control of the forces of the state - the police, the army etc. Also the media. How was storming the capitol going to gain control of the army? Of the police?
It couldn't have, but the coup leaders could be deluded enough to think that the police and armed forces would join them.
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.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I don't understand how it could ever have worked? Coup needs control of the forces of the state - the police, the army etc. Also the media. How was storming the capitol going to gain control of the army? Of the police?
He had been firing senior army officials and replacing them with loyalists in the weeks beforehand. Those resigning from top ranks in the military specifically warned of potential coups and reminded soldiers of their loyalty to the constitution and law ahead of their loyalty to the President.
Do you honestly believe that US troops would be prepared to stage a military coup? Really?
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?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
And the calculated pitch rolling - to declare a loss as a win - from months out.
And the thing is, he fixated on the wrong thing. He'd have had a stronger case claiming that the unprecedented four-year media campaign against him and/or Zuckerberg's millions made the election not free and/or fair rather than the insane claims that the ballot count didn't match the ballots cast.
I seem to recall he moaned a lot about that too. With rather less justification than similar from Jeremy Corbyn.
What Corbyn got didn't even compare.
Correct. It was far worse. Not that it cost Labour the election. That's all nonsense. Trump was actually the opposite. He got treated too easy by the media. For too long they gave his trolling and his sick Reality TV perversion of a presidency a sheen of respectability. They tried too hard to find something other than that in it. It was a big mistake. They also created him as a credible politician in the first place - with the ridiculous amount of exposure - which was an even bigger mistake. Ah well. Live and (I hope) learn.
Oooft - brutal Qs from the BBC to Boris Johnson in Ukraine!
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin... https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
Totally irresponsible question from the BBC.
Ask at home maybe but not in Ukraine when Ukraine is desperately welcoming the support from the UK PM against Putin. All the BBC have done by that question is strengthen Putin
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.
Just got off a call, hence the delay.
Many people in 1940 considered WSC to be the BJ of the day - incompetent, a grifter to the point of disreputable, a drunk and many things beside, including a political failure. If his career had ended in 1940, he would have been forgotten by now. Halifax, on the other day, was considered someone whose behaviour was, in many ways, beyond reproach. In fact, he was called "The Holy Fox".
Winston Churchill - man who warned against the dangers of totalitarian rule, who was devoted to his wife and a complete workaholic. A man whose concern about the rise of the Nazis was such that he was willing to be in the wilderness.
Boris Johnson - a man who wrote two essays on whether or not to go for Brexit.
Oooft - brutal Qs from the BBC to Boris Johnson in Ukraine!
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin... https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
Totally irresponsible question from the BBC.
Ask at home maybe but not in Ukraine when Ukraine is desperately welcoming the support from the UK PM against Putin. All the BBC have done by that question is strengthen Putin
You just cannot see how brutal this is and entirely self inflicted damage that is terminal for his premiership
The sooner you join us seeking a new leader the more content you will be
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?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
And the calculated pitch rolling - to declare a loss as a win - from months out.
And the thing is, he fixated on the wrong thing. He'd have had a stronger case claiming that the unprecedented four-year media campaign against him and/or Zuckerberg's millions made the election not free and/or fair rather than the insane claims that the ballot count didn't match the ballots cast.
I seem to recall he moaned a lot about that too. With rather less justification than similar from Jeremy Corbyn.
Oooft - brutal Qs from the BBC to Boris Johnson in Ukraine!
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin... https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
Totally irresponsible question from the BBC.
Ask at home maybe but not in Ukraine when Ukraine is desperately welcoming the support from the UK PM against Putin. All the BBC have done by that question is strengthen Putin
Johnson strengthens Putin.
Putting Wallace or Tugendhat in would settle some Ukrainian nerves.
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.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I don't understand how it could ever have worked? Coup needs control of the forces of the state - the police, the army etc. Also the media. How was storming the capitol going to gain control of the army? Of the police?
He had been firing senior army officials and replacing them with loyalists in the weeks beforehand. Those resigning from top ranks in the military specifically warned of potential coups and reminded soldiers of their loyalty to the constitution and law ahead of their loyalty to the President.
Do you honestly believe that US troops would be prepared to stage a military coup? Really?
Troops? Yes. They're just people and some of them are pro-Trump and ambivalent about democracy just like ordinary members of the public.
The wider military infrastructure? Not for Trump, no.
A slightly odd analogy, in that Mackay wasn't portrayed in Porridge as being a particularly effective prison officer and indeed often his abrasiveness caused trouble for him and the prison authorities (nor was Barraclough, of course, but the overall message was a bit of both were needed to keep the peace).
I actually think Hoyle is doing a pretty good job in really difficult circumstances where we have a PM of exceptional mendacity, and quite a few MPs on all benches who want to make a name for themselves in a social media age by deliberately pushing at the rules.
I think people think the Speaker has more power to hold the PM to account than he does. Hoyles is being judged against fantasy Speakers and a myth perpetuated by Bercow.
Worth nothing that even Lenthall of 'I have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear' fame was not always a stellar Speaker in later times.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I don't agree, I doubt there will be a VONC any time soon.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
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.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I don't understand how it could ever have worked? Coup needs control of the forces of the state - the police, the army etc. Also the media. How was storming the capitol going to gain control of the army? Of the police?
It couldn't have, but the coup leaders could be deluded enough to think that the police and armed forces would join them.
We tend to remember successful coups, but I imagine most coups fail precisely because the plotters are deluded about their chances.
Oooft - brutal Qs from the BBC to Boris Johnson in Ukraine!
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin... https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
Totally irresponsible question from the BBC.
Ask at home maybe but not in Ukraine when Ukraine is desperately welcoming the support from the UK PM against Putin. All the BBC have done by that question is strengthen Putin
Oh, get a grip you ridiculous bed-wetter.
We are a country that ditched a PM during a world war not once but twice. PMs don't get a pass just because foreign affairs issues are going on (as they always are). That's democracy and an independent media, and we're stronger for it.
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.
Just got off a call, hence the delay.
Many people in 1940 considered WSC to be the BJ of the day - incompetent, a grifter to the point of disreputable, a drunk and many things beside, including a political failure. If his career had ended in 1940, he would have been forgotten by now. Halifax, on the other day, was considered someone whose behaviour was, in many ways, beyond reproach. In fact, he was called "The Holy Fox".
The fundamental difference between the two men is exemplified in their attitude to women. WSC was devoted to his wife. Johnson's record in that respect is self-evident. While marriages collapse and I would not wish anyone to be in an unhappy one he is a serial adulterer and thus a liar.
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
I have to say, on glancing yesterday, the seem to have made a sensible job of it, such that we shouldn't get a spurious "rising numbers" panic from the media due to the effects of adding in these numbers.
How so when they are – as far as I can ascertain – bundled into the same data line, rather than sequestered?
Because, it looked like they'd backfilled all the additional data everywhere, so you compare with last week and no spurious rise to latch onto.
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.
Just got off a call, hence the delay.
Many people in 1940 considered WSC to be the BJ of the day - incompetent, a grifter to the point of disreputable, a drunk and many things beside, including a political failure. If his career had ended in 1940, he would have been forgotten by now. Halifax, on the other day, was considered someone whose behaviour was, in many ways, beyond reproach. In fact, he was called "The Holy Fox".
Winston Churchill - man who warned against the dangers of totalitarian rule, who was devoted to his wife and a complete workaholic. A man whose concern about the rise of the Nazis was such that he was willing to be in the wilderness.
Boris Johnson - a man who wrote two essays on whether or not to go for Brexit.
They both did have money problems.
His wilderness years were mostly because of opposition to Indian home rule.
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:
d) If you can't tell that was attempted coup then you clearly are the deluded one. The crowd invaded the county's parliament, tried to stop a president being appointed, the elected representatives had to flee for their lives, people were killed and arms drawn and all encouraged by the person who wanted to take power and when he had the opportunity to stop it refused for sometime.
There is a bit of an attempt to overlook all that for some reason. If people think a coup can only be when some chap in army greens takes over the TV stations to annouce the Committee for Restoration of Democracy through Killing People, sure, it is not a coup, but the violent storming of a legislature to prevent a legitimate procedure in the handover of power, at best tacitly encouraged by the losing side?
Anything she says on the subject is slightly undermined by her being another one of his Useful Idiots.
That's not fair at all. I would put Salmond in that camp without hesitation, what with his show on RT and all that. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if some SNP MPs are in Putin's pocket (I also think this about the other main parties of Britain and Northern Ireland). But it really, really doesn't ring true for Sturgeon. I mean, just read the damn article. She's spot on.
I genuinely don't have a problem with people wanting Scottish independence, I really don't. If it is just an excuse (as it seems with a couple of posters on here) to vent their anti-English prejudice/racism then that is another matter.
The problem they have is that they are advancing yet another one of Putin's pet foreign policy objectives. In that sense she falls into that category.
Yes, Russia certain has a preference for Scottish independence. But that doesn't mean that everyone who also wants it is a "useful idiot". The danger here is you reduce arguments for and against something to arguments about who else is in favour of it. Just because Putin is a staunch Orthodox Christian, doesn't make Bartholomew I of Constantinople one of his useful idiots.
I think your suggestion about his (supposed) Orthodox Christian status doesn't quite work. If Putin wished to see a schism between one part of the Orthodox Church and another and this was Putin's stated objective, and for whatever reason Bartholomew decided to independently promote this idea, even though it damaged Christendom generally, then Barty would be a Useful Idiot.
Sottish Nationalists are "Useful Idiots" from a Putin perspective, because he sees the break up of the UK as part of an overall desire to undermine the integrity of the West . It is said he seems somewhat obsessed with the break up of the UK and its humiliation as a world power as part of that plan. I imagine he sees Boris Johnson as a very Useful Idiot.
Oooft - brutal Qs from the BBC to Boris Johnson in Ukraine!
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin... https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
Totally irresponsible question from the BBC.
Ask at home maybe but not in Ukraine when Ukraine is desperately welcoming the support from the UK PM against Putin. All the BBC have done by that question is strengthen Putin
Do you think that people aren't able to tune into British politics from Russia or Ukraine? That they only know that Boris has spaffed his moral authority and is hanging by a party streamer because of a question asked in Ukraine? Do you think that we should muzzle the press? Do you think, like, at all?
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.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I don't understand how it could ever have worked? Coup needs control of the forces of the state - the police, the army etc. Also the media. How was storming the capitol going to gain control of the army? Of the police?
It couldn't have, but the coup leaders could be deluded enough to think that the police and armed forces would join them.
We tend to remember successful coups, but I imagine most coups fail precisely because the plotters are deluded about their chances.
The coup against Gorbachev was also a farce.
There is an interesting theory that the CIA (or some retried CIA guys) had stolen the bribe money that the conspirators were planning on using.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Now we're talking about whether Starmer actually protected Saville, and not about the fact that Johnson lied to Parliament. Repeatedly.
This was of course @NickPalmer's point. The debate is now (partly) about Starmer/Savile not Boris/Partygate. People should have ignored the Savile jibe. .
Charles Walker is a senior CRG member and very widely respected in the party. It feels significant that he's asking the PM to resign.
And the whips have no hold over him any more
It's not just that, it's more the case that he feels like a man in a grey suit giving Boris a bloodless way out. A way to salvage some shred of dignity before they rip him out of Number 10.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I thought it was Hemingway or Fitzgerald but had to check. 'Twas H indeed.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I don't agree, I doubt there will be a VONC any time soon.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
The 'worse' is happening every day and his interview in Kiev was a car crash, not for what he said but the caustic questions from journalists, and this is going to deteriorate every day including tomorrow's pmqs, especially if he uses Savile v Starmer
Indeed, I now think he will be very fortunate to survive the week
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I don't agree, I doubt there will be a VONC any time soon.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
Aren't you actually violently agreeing with me there? What you're describing is my prediction - gradually, then suddenly.
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.
Just got off a call, hence the delay.
Many people in 1940 considered WSC to be the BJ of the day - incompetent, a grifter to the point of disreputable, a drunk and many things beside, including a political failure. If his career had ended in 1940, he would have been forgotten by now. Halifax, on the other day, was considered someone whose behaviour was, in many ways, beyond reproach. In fact, he was called "The Holy Fox".
The fundamental difference between the two men is exemplified in their attitude to women. WSC was devoted to his wife. Johnson's record in that respect is self-evident. While marriages collapse and I would not wish anyone to be in an unhappy one he is a serial adulterer and thus a liar.
I would add that WSC had considerable personal courage. Volunteering and going to fight in the trenches after the Gallipoli fiasco for example.
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.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I don't understand how it could ever have worked? Coup needs control of the forces of the state - the police, the army etc. Also the media. How was storming the capitol going to gain control of the army? Of the police?
Suppose those storming the capitol had managed to capture many Democrat members of Congress, and execute them. Trump sends in the army to restore order. What is left of Congress continues the certification process, but the Republicans now have a majority, and so can refuse to certify "contentious" states, like Georgia, Arizona, etc. Trump is ahead on those States where the result is "beyond doubt", and so declared President by the Constitutional process.
As Trump is now declared President by the Constitutional process, members of the army, police, etc, would be bound to follow him. The key was in ensuring that the certification process only certified enough Electoral College votes to elect Trump, and not those that would elect Biden.
That's broadly what they would have hoped to have achieved by storming the capitol. They would have prevented the "stolen" states from being certified, leaving Trump the duly elected President.
Comments
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
So presumably in an exchange "You are a facilitator of child molesters" "That is a lie" the first claim is fine, the second can get you suspended. Funny old world.
Yesterday we had that farce of a session in the house and because Boris was, once again, burning through political capital to stay in power the PM of the UK was unable to speak to Putin on the eve of war. That degrades the office of the PM. He's put his personal survival ahead of the interests of the nation and now we're wholly reliant on France to represent European interests with Putin. Who really knows what Macron and Putin talked about? Who knows what Macron promised Putin?
We have lost our chance to have a sovereign meeting of equals with Russia because the PM was too busy covering up his lies and failures.
So no, it doesn't follow that wanting Boris out is the same as saying Churchill should have been prevented from taking over. In fact I'd say those who want him out are standing up for what's right, and that's something Churchill did in 1940 despite the easy option being appeasement just as those Tory MPs who aren't sending their letters in are taking the easy option of knuckling under.
Nope. It was absolutely moronic to include them in the same line, so it is now almost impossible to benchmark them. Which innumerate idiot in Whitehall thought this was ever a good idea?
We might as well bin the positive tests measure full stop now and just look at the hospitalisation data (although even these are no longer a like-for-like comparison due to the increased number of 'cases' feeding the hospital funnel).
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
Trying to get hundreds of arrogant, entitled stakeholders to do the same thing. Cat herding...
To its credit the IOPC has said that this is a significant problem not just 1 or 2 bad apples.
And Priti Patel is saying that there is a problem with the culture in the police
SWEETIE, WHAT TOOK YOU SO FUCKING LONG TO REALISE???
Get one of your SPADS to read this forum and my headers on this topic for the last 3 years and you'd have known this for some time and, even what you need to do about it.
Oh why do I bother? I'd have more fun beating my head against a brick wall. Probably more useful as well.
(Actually, HYUFD has a point that, for all Johnson will pull the Conservative brand over a cliff, there's nobody else out there who will do much better. Short of inventing a time machine, going back to 2019 and not doing the Great Purge, there's not a lot to be done about that.
As with some of the other bad things coming down the track, the point of no return for preventing damage has already passed.)
Mornington Crescent.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1488567663127375876
Time will tell whether Mp is really an outlier, or a harbinger.
In meantime, just had an idea for a new (sort of) game show: "The Outlier"
Contestants are questioned on their personal views, perspective & knowledge on range of topics. Then their answers are compared and contrasted with audience responses.
Resulting in the dread verdict, broadcast to an eager world - "YOU are The Outlier!"
Live on Sky and BBC
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin...
https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
Now we're talking about whether Starmer actually protected Saville, and not about the fact that Johnson lied to Parliament. Repeatedly.
Approve: 23% (n/c on 24th Jan)
Disapprove: 60% (+1)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/government-approval?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tracker&utm_campaign=government_approval https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1488570403383611392/photo/1
This press conference shows just how damaged Boris is as he fields excruciating questions in an international televised conference
This should be enough for his mps to say this must stop
Boris has no brain, just leave him in Ukraine please.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
Well, it's an irregular verb I guess.
- Cases. R is around 1. It is slightly above 1 for the younger groups (less vaccinated) and below 1 for the older groups.
- Admissions - down
- MV Beds - down
- In hospital - down
- Deaths - down
Ask at home maybe but not in Ukraine when Ukraine is desperately welcoming the support from the UK PM against Putin. All the BBC have done by that question is strengthen Putin
a) Apparently I am publicly willing to praise Dick Cheney. Eh. I have never mentioned him. To the best of my knowledge I have never mentioned him here, ever.
b) I'm frothing about Trump. Eh again. Where?
c) You refer to 'my side'. Just out of interest what do you think my side is? You make reference earlier to left-wingers. You clearly don't know what my politics are because I am not a left winger. Never voted Labour for instance in my life. If you mean by 'left wing' and 'my side' that I'm to the left of fascism then I'll plead guilty to that.
d) If you can't tell that was attempted coup then you clearly are the deluded one. The crowd invaded the county's parliament, tried to stop a president being appointed, the elected representatives had to flee for their lives, people were killed and arms drawn and all encouraged by the person who wanted to take power and when he had the opportunity to stop it refused for sometime.
And that wasn't an attempted coup? I think I will be putting you in the Fascist camp if you don't mind if you support that or even consider it to be anything other than an attempt to overthrow an election. I mean Trump has not even denied he wanted Pence to do it. And your reference to 'my side' when it is the view for instance of just about all (if not all) the Tories on this site does put you rather at the extreme right (or bonkers, and I would go with bonkers if I were you).
Must be pretty febrile in Westminster right now.
When it comes to the report itself 3 in 4 Brits think it’s bad for public trust in general, as well as for Boris Johnson and just over 7 in 10 believe it’s bad for the Conservative Party https://twitter.com/KellyIpsosUK/status/1488571795573821442/photo/1
Boris Johnson - a man who wrote two essays on whether or not to go for Brexit.
They both did have money problems.
The sooner you join us seeking a new leader the more content you will be
You cannot defend the indefensible
Putting Wallace or Tugendhat in would settle some Ukrainian nerves.
The wider military infrastructure? Not for Trump, no.
Worth nothing that even Lenthall of 'I have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear' fame was not always a stellar Speaker in later times.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
We are a country that ditched a PM during a world war not once but twice. PMs don't get a pass just because foreign affairs issues are going on (as they always are). That's democracy and an independent media, and we're stronger for it.
That's a coup attempt.
Sottish Nationalists are "Useful Idiots" from a Putin perspective, because he sees the break up of the UK as part of an overall desire to undermine the integrity of the West . It is said he seems somewhat obsessed with the break up of the UK and its humiliation as a world power as part of that plan. I imagine he sees Boris Johnson as a very Useful Idiot.
Do you think that we should muzzle the press?
Do you think, like, at all?
There is an interesting theory that the CIA (or some retried CIA guys) had stolen the bribe money that the conspirators were planning on using.
.
'Twas H indeed.
Indeed, I now think he will be very fortunate to survive the week
As Trump is now declared President by the Constitutional process, members of the army, police, etc, would be bound to follow him. The key was in ensuring that the certification process only certified enough Electoral College votes to elect Trump, and not those that would elect Biden.
That's broadly what they would have hoped to have achieved by storming the capitol. They would have prevented the "stolen" states from being certified, leaving Trump the duly elected President.