No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
He is here for the duration. May well win again in 2023/4 as well.
I find it bizarre the Tories are on the side of tax increases whilst Labour are positioning themselves against.
During a cost of living crisis, I can see which side will be more palatable to voters. So yes - Johnson survived another PMQs, but has to stand by some pretty dire policy decisions whilst repeating falsehoods about Saville, jobs and parties.
And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
I agree it's not what the public want. (Side note: surprised 'have seen some PMQs' is as high as 54%, I'd have guessed lower. I suppose for a lot of the people saying yes it will be "evening news had a clip from it".) But I suspect that for a fair number of MPs it *is* part of what they want out of it -- otherwise there'd be a bigger push to change it, and MPs have leverage to push that change, where the wider public don't.
I think having something like PMQs is good for democracy. Compare the US, where the President doesn’t face this sort of hostile questioning. If Trump had had to answer questions once a week, he would’ve fallen from grace sooner.
@dixiedean - further to your comments on the Canadian men's football team, I read a piece on them in World Soccer and I hadn't realised that they have an English manager:
Apparently, Starmer's fucked because he's a fat bastard with ill-fitting suits who let Jimmy Savile off.
Have I got that right?
Nope SKS is fucked because he's got ill fitting suits and happened to doing a job when an underling decided there wasn't evidence to prosecute Jimmy Saville.
It's the desperate excuse of someone who doesn't want to be held responsible for the failure of a work culture Bozo created and approved of.
Neither Starmer nor Johnson gets close to 5' 10". Neither seems to be that interested in taking exercise. Both are clearly overweight. Johnson also likes to party. But they are both wealthy, so the chances are they will both live to a decent age.
No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
He is here for the duration. May well win again in 2023/4 as well.
I find it hard to believe he will last until 2024, but the flatness of today's PMQs does make me wonder if the oomph has finally gone out of the Partygate scandal. Everyone is bored of it (even some on the Left)
Of course the Met Police might revive it, but they might not.
And all this will not repair the enormous damage done to Boris and his government
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
Roger has recently drawn attention to Starmer's ill-fitting suits.
Both Starmer and Johnson would be better off with well-cut double breasted suits to hide their paunches. Starmer probably would look quite good in one.
SKS also hasn't updated his shirt collection recently as well, so he could probably do with a 1/4 - 1/2 increase in collar size.
Yes, he hasn't accepted he's got a fatter neck
It's like a 42 year old man convinced he can still fit 32 waist jeans, the result can be mortifying
"survived"? Well of course he did. He still looked like a shifty blustering liar though. Whether the Tory Party will "survive" is another matter. That should weigh on your conscience, but you have become a prisoner of an incompetent and dishonest oaf who has caused you to contract a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.
@dixiedean - further to your comments on the Canadian men's football team, I read a piece on them in World Soccer and I hadn't realised that they have an English manager:
"He knows exactly what he is doing" says Starmer of PM.
Yawn
Weren't you telling us peak Starmer was a fortnight ago then hours later we had a poll with a 11% Labour lead.
The peak was the 13% and 14% lead polls as I stated.
I thought you were interested in Politics
I am, EICIPM.
Memory OK from 7 years ago but not so much polls from 17 days ago!!
How do you intend to vote at the next GE I havent got a clue except it wont be Lab under Starmer?
I'm abstaining as things stand.
I'm fortunate I live in a Lab/LD marginal.
You voted LD in 2017 and 2019, what has poor Sir Ed done to lose your support?
I think Sheffield Hallam is probably secure for Labour now anyway. It is surely the perfect constituency for Keir Starmer. The Lib Dems could even drop to third there next time. The lib dems should send lot of their activists to Cheadle/Hazel Grove or Harrogate instead.
No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
Yes, it is always a bit of a giveaway when the Prime Minister can reel off, without notes, a list of local names or places.
What a lot of twaddle from both of them. Tedious, infantile shite
Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS
Are you new to PMQs?
And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
I don't believe the respondents, I think it is an example where people reply with what they think they should be saying rather than what they believe, social desirability bias. It's loud, brash and partisan, and we know that we should say that is wrong.
Take the 67% saying there is 'too much party political point scoring', that's a load of nonsense. People love political point scoring, we reward our politicians for it, and we tend not to reward those who don't create a spectacle or who genuinely try to cooperate with their opponents.
If we didn't like partisan theatrics we would not have gotten into a situation where they are rewarded, or face no consequences, for indulging in it.
Both can be true.
Current viewers might indeed like the infantile drama.
Other potential but not current viewers may prefer more informative and informed debate.
No-one really knows how big that second group is or how many of the first group would lose interest if they actually debated rather than insulted.
Personally PMQ can generally only hold my attention for 5-10 minutes if that, whereas I could have select committee coverage on and follow that for a couple of hours.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Good choice of Starmer’s not to go fully Partygate again. Think that would have gone down badly. Decent performance.
He’s got to be careful on the tax burden stuff though. It does allow Boris cheap and easy hits on the “I’m doing it for the NHS” line.
Yes but as framed today it was focussed on choosing taxes on workers rather than on [insert unpopular group].
Many people will notice the fall in how much hits their bank account in April. If Labour can link it to Tory choices rather than being unavoidable then it should help their position. It helps that solely taxing workers was a political choice - other options were available.
As it happens, I think the banks / energy company line is pure politics, but it opens fewer lines of counterattack than a wealth tax.
No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
He is here for the duration. May well win again in 2023/4 as well.
I find it hard to believe he will last until 2024, but the flatness of today's PMQs does make me wonder if the oomph has finally gone out of the Partygate scandal. Everyone is bored of it (even some on the Left)
Of course the Met Police might revive it, but they might not.
And all this will not repair the enormous damage done to Boris and his government
Yep - it's time to move on. Partygate has done its job for Labour. Starmer was right to change the subject today.
Last week I backed the winner of a Golf Tournament, i had £5 on at 9/1.
I have just tried to have £5 on a 33/1 shot with the same bookmaker (Betfair Sportsbook) for this weeks tournament in the UAE and they have said I can have a maximum of £0.00 on. I had the bet on the exchange instead, which oddly was a point lower.
Something needs to be done about bookmakers doing this.
An interesting consequence of the way off course bookmakers behave is that the oncourse market is making a comeback as bookmakers there actually want to take money
Apparently, Starmer's fucked because he's a fat bastard with ill-fitting suits who let Jimmy Savile off.
Have I got that right?
Well, he is as boring as sh1t as well but you've got the picture.
I guess that now the "Starmer is crap" attack line is demonstrably false, you have to go for the "Starmer is boring" childish sledge attempt that is somewhat reminiscent of what the Aussies said about England before the Rugby World Cup in 2003.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
Every time Johnson says anything for the rest of his life I want the response to be something like, "How do I know you're not lying again?"
He has to be made an example for everyone else in public life, otherwise he will be the proof that we tolerate any amount of lying.
The reason Bell's 'Do you think I'm a fool?' question worked so well, in my opinion, is that by his actions we know with a high degree of certainty that the answer was yes. Not that Boris will have put his mind to the question about Bell specifically, but about people who did trouble themselves to follow rules. Whereas possibly more relevant and cutting questions Boris could evade better will not have stuck as well as a simple, personal question, where he has to say no, but we can see the answer is otherwise.
It worked because it is exactly the sort of question lots and lots of us, me included, have been asking themselves ever since these stories broke. And pretty much in the same words. Aaron spoke for very many of us, regardless of party affiliation.
No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
He is here for the duration. May well win again in 2023/4 as well.
Last week I backed the winner of a Golf Tournament, i had £5 on at 9/1.
I have just tried to have £5 on a 33/1 shot with the same bookmaker (Betfair Sportsbook) for this weeks tournament in the UAE and they have said I can have a maximum of £0.00 on. I had the bet on the exchange instead, which oddly was a point lower.
Something needs to be done about bookmakers doing this.
An interesting consequence of the way off course bookmakers behave is that the oncourse market is making a comeback as bookmakers there actually want to take money
As 99.5% of punters lose I do find this policy of restricting people completely mad.
Only going to get worse (for those who do actually win long term) as the bookies will be able to see your net deposits across all UK licensed bookies so it will be trivial to restrict the winners even more aggressively. Contact your MP as these changes are still TBC and MPs are unlikely to have considered it from a winning punters perspective at all.
He's right. It is impossible to watch this without squirming in second-hand discomfort. UGH
"Long been interested in how intensely claustrophobia communicates vicariously; induces what William Golding once called “sympathetic kinaesthesia”. I’ve spent a fair bit of time underground, and watching this still makes my breath shorten, heart race, shoulders tighten… You?"
Last week I backed the winner of a Golf Tournament, i had £5 on at 9/1.
I have just tried to have £5 on a 33/1 shot with the same bookmaker (Betfair Sportsbook) for this weeks tournament in the UAE and they have said I can have a maximum of £0.00 on. I had the bet on the exchange instead, which oddly was a point lower.
Something needs to be done about bookmakers doing this.
An interesting consequence of the way off course bookmakers behave is that the oncourse market is making a comeback as bookmakers there actually want to take money
He's right. It is impossible to watch this without squirming in second-hand discomfort. UGH
"Long been interested in how intensely claustrophobia communicates vicariously; induces what William Golding once called “sympathetic kinaesthesia”. I’ve spent a fair bit of time underground, and watching this still makes my breath shorten, heart race, shoulders tighten… You?"
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It has previously been suggested that CCHQ was trialling the Savile attack for use in an election, which might be why Boris had it in mind. The problem for Labour is that these smears can easily be disseminated below the radar via social media. As with attacks on Corbyn, as with attacks on vaccines, we can see this tactic can be effective.
No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
He is here for the duration. May well win again in 2023/4 as well.
I find it hard to believe he will last until 2024, but the flatness of today's PMQs does make me wonder if the oomph has finally gone out of the Partygate scandal. Everyone is bored of it (even some on the Left)
Of course the Met Police might revive it, but they might not.
And all this will not repair the enormous damage done to Boris and his government
Partygate is far from over. We had fresh revelations just yesterday. Gray's actual report will appear at some stage: it is impossible to believe it will be less than damning. It is hard to see how the Met investigation will lead to nothing. The Philip funeral eve party will surely lead to fines. The question is whether B or C Johnson get fined too. So oomph aplenty to come! There will be lulls as investigations continue, but nothing's been resolved.
🎙️Telegraph Comment Journalist @mutazamd says he has spoken to a Labour source who says the party's strategy is to "just let him bleed out" when it comes to Boris Johnson
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
If we fail to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine we will inevitably have further Russian aggression elsewhere and risk being seen as unwilling to counter that aggression.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
Only if the Americans will do that, Biden has made clear he will do sanctions but not send US troops to Ukraine
Yes. The Americans would have to do it, because the Europeans aren't able. And it's possible that the Americans are more concerned with keeping free of additional commitments so that they can deter Chinese aggression towards Taiwan than with defending Ukraine.
It's disappointing then that there wasn't a determination from Europe to improve its own defence after 2014. Hopefully we and they will be better prepared for the next time.
Biden won't defend Taiwan either. He is the most isolationist US President since Carter, see also his withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
Unless Putin invades a NATO nation Biden wouldn't act, Trump if he returns as POTUS maybe not even then (though Trump might go to war with China to defend Taiwan unlike Biden). So yes I agree Europe, especially Germany, needs to do more than it is to defend its own backyard
"He knows exactly what he is doing" says Starmer of PM.
Yawn
Weren't you telling us peak Starmer was a fortnight ago then hours later we had a poll with a 11% Labour lead.
The peak was the 13% and 14% lead polls as I stated.
I thought you were interested in Politics
I am, EICIPM.
Memory OK from 7 years ago but not so much polls from 17 days ago!!
How do you intend to vote at the next GE I havent got a clue except it wont be Lab under Starmer?
I'm abstaining as things stand.
I'm fortunate I live in a Lab/LD marginal.
But Hallam was Tory for a century (bar a brief Liberal interlude in WWI). Can't you see the party ever being competitive there again?
It'll probably turn into a reasonably safe Labour seat now like Leeds NW. At best the Tories can get a distant second there in general elections and a few councillors in Dore/Totley or Stannington.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It has previously been suggested that CCHQ was trialling the Savile attack for use in an election, which might be why Boris had it in mind. The problem for Labour is that these smears can easily be disseminated below the radar via social media. As with attacks on Corbyn, as with attacks on vaccines, we can see this tactic can be effective.
They can also be counter productive. They produce excitement for the gullible, but for the less gullible they conform to a narrative that Johnson is a liar. Point of order where I don't agree with your post: Most attacks on Corbyn did have basis in fact though. People didn't need to make stuff up about him.
"He knows exactly what he is doing" says Starmer of PM.
Yawn
Weren't you telling us peak Starmer was a fortnight ago then hours later we had a poll with a 11% Labour lead.
The peak was the 13% and 14% lead polls as I stated.
I thought you were interested in Politics
I am, EICIPM.
Memory OK from 7 years ago but not so much polls from 17 days ago!!
How do you intend to vote at the next GE I havent got a clue except it wont be Lab under Starmer?
I'm abstaining as things stand.
I'm fortunate I live in a Lab/LD marginal.
You voted LD in 2017 and 2019, what has poor Sir Ed done to lose your support?
Having that conspiracy theory believing/spreading bellend Vera Hobhouse on the front bench.
If you are going to use that as your measure you can't support anyone. After all the Tories had David Tredinnick when you were a member and he made Hobhouse look totally sane. I haven't a clue how she got selected for such a target seat, but I think unfortunately MPs probably have more of their share of nutters and the LDs haven't enough MPs not to give everyone a role.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
What is a power play in curling? A power play in Mixed Doubles curling allows a team to change the location that the stones are placed. ... By using the power play, a team is able to keep the middle of the sheet open, which helps the team with the hammer generate more offense and score more points.
I think Sheffield Hallam is probably secure for Labour now anyway. It is surely the perfect constituency for Keir Starmer. The Lib Dems could even drop to third there next time. The lib dems should send lot of their activists to Cheadle/Hazel Grove or Harrogate instead.
Realistically, the Lib Dems are absolutely certain to target Sheffield Hallam heavily next time. They missed it by just 712 votes in 2019, with the Tories receiving 14,696 in third. If the Tories are on the defensive next time, you'd expect them to focus on places like Rother Valley, leaving them rather vulnerable to a squeeze.
You may well be right that they missed their best chance after the O'Mara fiasco and with Corbyn as Labour leader. But the idea it isn't a highly credible Lib Dem target, or that they are going to direct activists to the other side of the Peak District is a bit loopy.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It has previously been suggested that CCHQ was trialling the Savile attack for use in an election, which might be why Boris had it in mind. The problem for Labour is that these smears can easily be disseminated below the radar via social media. As with attacks on Corbyn, as with attacks on vaccines, we can see this tactic can be effective.
The difference is the attacks on Corbyn were based on piles of evidence of a man all too cozy with terrorists and antisemites.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It has previously been suggested that CCHQ was trialling the Savile attack for use in an election, which might be why Boris had it in mind. The problem for Labour is that these smears can easily be disseminated below the radar via social media. As with attacks on Corbyn, as with attacks on vaccines, we can see this tactic can be effective.
I suspect he was thinking he could deflect future attacks on him for what civil servants were doing in Number Ten when he wasn't around by getting Starmer to establish a narrative that the man at the top isn't responsible for the underlings.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It has previously been suggested that CCHQ was trialling the Savile attack for use in an election, which might be why Boris had it in mind. The problem for Labour is that these smears can easily be disseminated below the radar via social media. As with attacks on Corbyn, as with attacks on vaccines, we can see this tactic can be effective.
The difference is the attacks on Corbyn were based on piles of evidence of a man all too cozy with terrorists and antisemites.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
It is unless you are particularly good looking.
Yes. @OnlyLivingBoy is not just linguistically wrong but factually wrong. The advent of Tinder and other apps has been disastrous for the 80% of young men who aren’t alpha and good looking (or very notably rich and successful)
Hence the rise of the incel movement. A lot of young men not getting any sex as the top 20% get loads. And the stats show this is a real and dangerous phenomenon
Roll on the sex bots in the metaverse. Then we can all be JFK (or the equivalent woman - Catherine the Great?)
In terms of sex, yes Tinder is not much help in getting much of it unless you are very good looking. The very rich can always attract lots of women as you say anyway through the attraction of their credit card.
However, if you want a committed relationship and ultimately marriage then sites like eharmony still offer plenty of opportunity for the ordinary looking, as people on those sites are more interested in commitment and personality than looks and a quick one night stand.
"He knows exactly what he is doing" says Starmer of PM.
Yawn
Weren't you telling us peak Starmer was a fortnight ago then hours later we had a poll with a 11% Labour lead.
The peak was the 13% and 14% lead polls as I stated.
I thought you were interested in Politics
I am, EICIPM.
Memory OK from 7 years ago but not so much polls from 17 days ago!!
How do you intend to vote at the next GE I havent got a clue except it wont be Lab under Starmer?
I'm abstaining as things stand.
I'm fortunate I live in a Lab/LD marginal.
But Hallam was Tory for a century (bar a brief Liberal interlude in WWI). Can't you see the party ever being competitive there again?
Demographically not for a few decades now.
Sheffield has two large universities, whilst the universities aren’t in the boundaries of the constituency a lot of their staff live here and they aren’t enamoured with Boris/Brexit.
And in a wider highly educated electorate then it isn’t happening unless something fundamental.
What a time to be alive that the Dingles of Penistone & Stocksbridge have a Tory MP and Hallam has a Labour MP.
"He knows exactly what he is doing" says Starmer of PM.
Yawn
Weren't you telling us peak Starmer was a fortnight ago then hours later we had a poll with a 11% Labour lead.
The peak was the 13% and 14% lead polls as I stated.
I thought you were interested in Politics
I am, EICIPM.
Memory OK from 7 years ago but not so much polls from 17 days ago!!
How do you intend to vote at the next GE I havent got a clue except it wont be Lab under Starmer?
I'm abstaining as things stand.
I'm fortunate I live in a Lab/LD marginal.
You voted LD in 2017 and 2019, what has poor Sir Ed done to lose your support?
Having that conspiracy theory believing/spreading bellend Vera Hobhouse on the front bench.
If you are going to use that as your measure you can't support anyone. After all the Tories had David Tredinnick when you were a member and he made Hobhouse look totally sane. I haven't a clue how she got selected for such a target seat, but I think unfortunately MPs probably have more of their share of nutters and the LDs haven't enough MPs not to give everyone a role.
Who?
When was David Tredinnick "on the front bench" and what front bench role did he hold?
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It's going to get very rough indeed. For me the key question is, do enough of the public see the light on Boris Johnson? I'm hoping that's a Yes. I'm hoping his brand is trashed now. If it is, I think the Cons are on their way out even if they replace him and it'll be PM Starmer after the GE.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Look if you prefer the Tories, by all means go on and vote for them.
But I really think you're demonstrating my point. There's an issue you don't agree with Labour on, and it is clearly sufficient for you to not vote Labour. Fine.
But if you're not prepared to vote against the government (and let's be fair, you have non-Labour options too) then you had the chance to fix the many issues you raise, and you turned it down.
And yes of course Labour do have policies on police reform and increasing rape convictions and better funding for legal aid and prevention of violence against women etc.
I am 1 million% confident they will talk about these issues in their manifesto. But you won't believe them.
"He knows exactly what he is doing" says Starmer of PM.
Yawn
Weren't you telling us peak Starmer was a fortnight ago then hours later we had a poll with a 11% Labour lead.
The peak was the 13% and 14% lead polls as I stated.
I thought you were interested in Politics
I am, EICIPM.
Memory OK from 7 years ago but not so much polls from 17 days ago!!
How do you intend to vote at the next GE I havent got a clue except it wont be Lab under Starmer?
I'm abstaining as things stand.
I'm fortunate I live in a Lab/LD marginal.
But Hallam was Tory for a century (bar a brief Liberal interlude in WWI). Can't you see the party ever being competitive there again?
Demographically not for a few decades now.
Sheffield has two large universities, whilst the universities aren’t in the boundaries of the constituency a lot of their staff live here and they aren’t enamoured with Boris/Brexit.
And in a wider highly educated electorate then it isn’t happening unless something fundamental.
What a time to be alive that the Dingles of Penistone & Stocksbridge have a Tory MP and Hallam has a Labour MP.
In the 1970s a seat like Sheffield Hallam, wealthy and with lots of graduates was safe Tory under Heath.
Now post Brexit, seats with lots of graduates tend to be the safest for Labour or the LDs.
Although the Tories have lost the highest educated (especially if they are not rich), they have done better with the white working class, so voters who might have voted for Wilson in 1974 (like those in Penistone and Stocksbridge) are more likely to vote for Boris now, voters who voted for Heath or Thorpe then are quite likely to be voting for Starmer now
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It has previously been suggested that CCHQ was trialling the Savile attack for use in an election, which might be why Boris had it in mind. The problem for Labour is that these smears can easily be disseminated below the radar via social media. As with attacks on Corbyn, as with attacks on vaccines, we can see this tactic can be effective.
They can also be counter productive. They produce excitement for the gullible, but for the less gullible they conform to a narrative that Johnson is a liar. Point of order where I don't agree with your post: Most attacks on Corbyn did have basis in fact though. People didn't need to make stuff up about him.
The best attacks have some basis in fact; even the Savile one does; even anti-vax stuff sometimes has. The point is that under-the-radar social media campaigns are almost impossible to counter (for a start, if they are under the radar, how do you even know there is something to refute) and can take on a life of their own.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It has previously been suggested that CCHQ was trialling the Savile attack for use in an election, which might be why Boris had it in mind. The problem for Labour is that these smears can easily be disseminated below the radar via social media. As with attacks on Corbyn, as with attacks on vaccines, we can see this tactic can be effective.
They can also be counter productive. They produce excitement for the gullible, but for the less gullible they conform to a narrative that Johnson is a liar. Point of order where I don't agree with your post: Most attacks on Corbyn did have basis in fact though. People didn't need to make stuff up about him.
The best attacks have some basis in fact; even the Savile one does; even anti-vax stuff sometimes has ...
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And don't forget the stuff about the royal family being blood-sucking lizards from outer space.
Probably the best data visualisation I've seen in a long time. Fascinating stuff.
Yes its brilliant. The rise of China, supplanting America
China’s power is frightening.
Yes and no. These trade links make China powerful but also vulnerable, with a strong stake in the global economy. In a way, the autarkic Soviet Union that shows up in the earlier years was a more frightening power because its lack of a stake in the global capitalist system gave it more leeway to act (although ultimately it pointed to an unsustainable economic model). I think we will only have a good idea of what the economic rise of China means once it goes through its debt crisis.
I think Sheffield Hallam is probably secure for Labour now anyway. It is surely the perfect constituency for Keir Starmer. The Lib Dems could even drop to third there next time. The lib dems should send lot of their activists to Cheadle/Hazel Grove or Harrogate instead.
Realistically, the Lib Dems are absolutely certain to target Sheffield Hallam heavily next time. They missed it by just 712 votes in 2019, with the Tories receiving 14,696 in third. If the Tories are on the defensive next time, you'd expect them to focus on places like Rother Valley, leaving them rather vulnerable to a squeeze.
You may well be right that they missed their best chance after the O'Mara fiasco and with Corbyn as Labour leader. But the idea it isn't a highly credible Lib Dem target, or that they are going to direct activists to the other side of the Peak District is a bit loopy.
I'm sure they will target it heavily but I think it's a bit deceptive as they failed to squeeze the Tory vote in 2019 despite supposedly favourable circumstances. I also imagine the residual Tory vote is skewed towards Brexit supporting pensioners and will be trickier to squeeze than it looks.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It's going to get very rough indeed. For me the key question is, do enough of the public see the light on Boris Johnson? I'm hoping that's a Yes. I'm hoping his brand is trashed now. If it is, I think the Cons are on their way out even if they replace him and it'll be PM Starmer after the GE.
I don't think nastiness will be a very effective strategy for Johnson.
I get the impression that a lot of people who still have time for him realise that he's a lazy, incompetent, lying womaniser, but still harbour remnants of affection for the genial, bumbling clown they first encountered.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It has previously been suggested that CCHQ was trialling the Savile attack for use in an election, which might be why Boris had it in mind. The problem for Labour is that these smears can easily be disseminated below the radar via social media. As with attacks on Corbyn, as with attacks on vaccines, we can see this tactic can be effective.
They can also be counter productive. They produce excitement for the gullible, but for the less gullible they conform to a narrative that Johnson is a liar. Point of order where I don't agree with your post: Most attacks on Corbyn did have basis in fact though. People didn't need to make stuff up about him.
The best attacks have some basis in fact; even the Savile one does; even anti-vax stuff sometimes has ...
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And don't forget the stuff about the royal family being blood-sucking lizards from outer space.
Probably the best data visualisation I've seen in a long time. Fascinating stuff.
Yes its brilliant. The rise of China, supplanting America
China’s power is frightening.
And the absolute decline of our own power and relevance as it demonstrates. Global Britain my arse. We've been declining for a while and have now gone full hermit.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
I've seen a couple of instances (stupid bills on citizenship and human rights) where Starmer has not taken the bait, and continued to hammer home on his main messages. Definitely encouraging.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it. Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
It's going to get very rough indeed. For me the key question is, do enough of the public see the light on Boris Johnson? I'm hoping that's a Yes. I'm hoping his brand is trashed now. If it is, I think the Cons are on their way out even if they replace him and it'll be PM Starmer after the GE.
I do think the public see through him. Less confident about Tory MPs and it is a long time to the next election.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Look if you prefer the Tories, by all means go on and vote for them.
But I really think you're demonstrating my point. There's an issue you don't agree with Labour on, and it is clearly sufficient for you to not vote Labour. Fine.
But if you're not prepared to vote against the government (and let's be fair, you have non-Labour options too) then you had the chance to fix the many issues you raise, and you turned it down.
And yes of course Labour do have policies on police reform and increasing rape convictions and better funding for legal aid and prevention of violence against women etc.
I am 1 million% confident they will talk about these issues in their manifesto. But you won't believe them.
I have voted against the government in recent elections and plan to do so again in May.
I very much assure you that I cannot vote for the Tory party. I don't even regard this lot as proper Tories - there has been as I've said for some time a reverse takeover by UKIP.
My vote is very much up for grabs by Labour. I would like to be able to vote for them. It is time for a change. I have done so in the past. But I am not going to vote for them if they threaten my existing rights as a woman. Or those of my daughter. I will see what they say on the topic. Judging by what they have said until now they simply do not get the issue or the concern. There are some promising signs from Wes Streeting, though. So we shall see.
But one reason why I raise this now on here is because I very strongly feel that womens' issues of all types are just not taken seriously enough by any party - or by the commentariat. To the extent that anyone who might be able to make a difference reads and/or agrees with anything I write, well, maybe it is a very tiny pebble thrown into a pool. That is all.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
Exactly , Kinabalu spouting pompous bullshit with no evidence whatsoever, a bag of empty wind in fact.
"He knows exactly what he is doing" says Starmer of PM.
Yawn
Weren't you telling us peak Starmer was a fortnight ago then hours later we had a poll with a 11% Labour lead.
The peak was the 13% and 14% lead polls as I stated.
I thought you were interested in Politics
I am, EICIPM.
Memory OK from 7 years ago but not so much polls from 17 days ago!!
How do you intend to vote at the next GE I havent got a clue except it wont be Lab under Starmer?
I'm abstaining as things stand.
I'm fortunate I live in a Lab/LD marginal.
You voted LD in 2017 and 2019, what has poor Sir Ed done to lose your support?
Having that conspiracy theory believing/spreading bellend Vera Hobhouse on the front bench.
If you are going to use that as your measure you can't support anyone. After all the Tories had David Tredinnick when you were a member and he made Hobhouse look totally sane. I haven't a clue how she got selected for such a target seat, but I think unfortunately MPs probably have more of their share of nutters and the LDs haven't enough MPs not to give everyone a role.
Who?
When was David Tredinnick "on the front bench" and what front bench role did he hold?
He wasn't but I covered that by pointing out that every LD MP has to have several portfolios because there are so few of them.
Re Tredinnick he was a PPS but had to stand down because of the expenses scandal but he chaired committees and also was on the Health Committee and the Science and Technology Committee and got there because the Tories failed to nominate a sane MP.
The fact that he thought blood didn't clot under a full moon is just one of his completely off the wall thoughts. He is completely and utterly bonkers. Have a look at his Wikipedia page.
The fact he got on both the Health and Science and Technology Committees in particular is outrageous and a shame on the Tories for not putting up someone instead of him.
Finally of course I suspect it is not edifying discussing who has the barmiest MPs and just accept all parties have some loons and we would do well to avoid them as much as possible, but accept it happens and politics attracts them.
Specifically on the LDs though, in the past 50 year I have been impressed with the quality of the MPs, probably because of the difficulty of getting elected. I can't say that of the current crop though. None have particularly impressed me. I hope some of the more recent ones will be better. I have hopes for Daisy Cooper, but not convinced yet. Ed Davey is ok, but he is not Paddy Ashdown.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did NOT opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for that but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
Comments
It was a boring, childish nil-nil draw, and Starmer has got a fat neck. C'est tout
During a cost of living crisis, I can see which side will be more palatable to voters. So yes - Johnson survived another PMQs, but has to stand by some pretty dire policy decisions whilst repeating falsehoods about Saville, jobs and parties.
It's the desperate excuse of someone who doesn't want to be held responsible for the failure of a work culture Bozo created and approved of.
Of course the Met Police might revive it, but they might not.
And all this will not repair the enormous damage done to Boris and his government
BTW, are you around 5ft tall?
Current viewers might indeed like the infantile drama.
Other potential but not current viewers may prefer more informative and informed debate.
No-one really knows how big that second group is or how many of the first group would lose interest if they actually debated rather than insulted.
Personally PMQ can generally only hold my attention for 5-10 minutes if that, whereas I could have select committee coverage on and follow that for a couple of hours.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Many people will notice the fall in how much hits their bank account in April. If Labour can link it to Tory choices rather than being unavoidable then it should help their position. It helps that solely taxing workers was a political choice - other options were available.
As it happens, I think the banks / energy company line is pure politics, but it opens fewer lines of counterattack than a wealth tax.
Now have the hammer in 5th
I have just tried to have £5 on a 33/1 shot with the same bookmaker (Betfair Sportsbook) for this weeks tournament in the UAE and they have said I can have a maximum of £0.00 on. I had the bet on the exchange instead, which oddly was a point lower.
Something needs to be done about bookmakers doing this.
An interesting consequence of the way off course bookmakers behave is that the oncourse market is making a comeback as bookmakers there actually want to take money
https://www.starsportsbet.co.uk/simon-nott-its-coming-home/
As 99.5% of punters lose I do find this policy of restricting people completely mad.
But will he withstand when Johnson gets really nasty? And he will. I'm certain of it.
Boris Johnson has managed to get Jimmy Saville in the news very successfully just now.
And let's not forget David Cameron was happy to wrongly accuse people of supporting Islamic State for a London mayoral election. Boris has more to lose and fewer moral scruples.
No smutty comments please this is serious stuff
"We need to wait for the Police to tell us if BoZo partied in his own flat"
I paraphrase only slightly...
"Long been interested in how intensely claustrophobia communicates vicariously; induces what William Golding once called “sympathetic kinaesthesia”.
I’ve spent a fair bit of time underground, and watching this still makes my breath shorten, heart race, shoulders tighten…
You?"
https://twitter.com/RobGMacfarlane/status/1488846828368019459?s=20&t=zhyCee-AhfA3PojYMIwuhg
https://twitter.com/sundellviz/status/1488596964208001026
Listen live on @TwitterSpaces 👇
https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1YpKkZoMzawxj
3 ends to go
What is a power play in curling? A power play in Mixed Doubles curling allows a team to change the location that the stones are placed. ... By using the power play, a team is able to keep the middle of the sheet open, which helps the team with the hammer generate more offense and score more points.
You may well be right that they missed their best chance after the O'Mara fiasco and with Corbyn as Labour leader. But the idea it isn't a highly credible Lib Dem target, or that they are going to direct activists to the other side of the Peak District is a bit loopy.
I don't think it worked...
Sheffield has two large universities, whilst the universities aren’t in the boundaries of the constituency a lot of their staff live here and they aren’t enamoured with Boris/Brexit.
And in a wider highly educated electorate then it isn’t happening unless something fundamental.
What a time to be alive that the Dingles of Penistone & Stocksbridge have a Tory MP and Hallam has a Labour MP.
China’s power is frightening.
When was David Tredinnick "on the front bench" and what front bench role did he hold?
But I really think you're demonstrating my point. There's an issue you don't agree with Labour on, and it is clearly sufficient for you to not vote Labour. Fine.
But if you're not prepared to vote against the government (and let's be fair, you have non-Labour options too) then you had the chance to fix the many issues you raise, and you turned it down.
And yes of course Labour do have policies on police reform and increasing rape convictions and better funding for legal aid and prevention of violence against women etc.
I am 1 million% confident they will talk about these issues in their manifesto. But you won't believe them.
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-launches-safer-communities-campaign/
Now post Brexit, seats with lots of graduates tend to be the safest for Labour or the LDs.
Although the Tories have lost the highest educated (especially if they are not rich), they have done better with the white working class, so voters who might have voted for Wilson in 1974 (like those in Penistone and Stocksbridge) are more likely to vote for Boris now, voters who voted for Heath or Thorpe then are quite likely to be voting for Starmer now
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
New Thread
And some new threads for TSE because this just screams you (in quiet tasteful mode) https://www.tkmaxx.com/uk/en/mens-early-access/blue-striped-three-piece-suit/p/23602210I think we will only have a good idea of what the economic rise of China means once it goes through its debt crisis.
I get the impression that a lot of people who still have time for him realise that he's a lazy, incompetent, lying womaniser, but still harbour remnants of affection for the genial, bumbling clown they first encountered.
I very much assure you that I cannot vote for the Tory party. I don't even regard this lot as proper Tories - there has been as I've said for some time a reverse takeover by UKIP.
My vote is very much up for grabs by Labour. I would like to be able to vote for them. It is time for a change. I have done so in the past. But I am not going to vote for them if they threaten my existing rights as a woman. Or those of my daughter. I will see what they say on the topic. Judging by what they have said until now they simply do not get the issue or the concern. There are some promising signs from Wes Streeting, though. So we shall see.
But one reason why I raise this now on here is because I very strongly feel that womens' issues of all types are just not taken seriously enough by any party - or by the commentariat. To the extent that anyone who might be able to make a difference reads and/or agrees with anything I write, well, maybe it is a very tiny pebble thrown into a pool. That is all.
Re Tredinnick he was a PPS but had to stand down because of the expenses scandal but he chaired committees and also was on the Health Committee and the Science and Technology Committee and got there because the Tories failed to nominate a sane MP.
The fact that he thought blood didn't clot under a full moon is just one of his completely off the wall thoughts. He is completely and utterly bonkers. Have a look at his Wikipedia page.
The fact he got on both the Health and Science and Technology Committees in particular is outrageous and a shame on the Tories for not putting up someone instead of him.
Finally of course I suspect it is not edifying discussing who has the barmiest MPs and just accept all parties have some loons and we would do well to avoid them as much as possible, but accept it happens and politics attracts them.
Specifically on the LDs though, in the past 50 year I have been impressed with the quality of the MPs, probably because of the difficulty of getting elected. I can't say that of the current crop though. None have particularly impressed me. I hope some of the more recent ones will be better. I have hopes for Daisy Cooper, but not convinced yet. Ed Davey is ok, but he is not Paddy Ashdown.
I did NOT opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for that but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.