Honestly, at the risk of being thought frivolous, I'd love it if this guy said that no, he's not going to resign, why the hell should he when the PM has broken the law, lied to Parliament and sacrificed an aide who did nothing wrong, the porn was legal, he's not the only one in Parliament who has watched porn and how many of his accusers can say that they've never done the same etc.
Just to watch the level of spluttering sanctimonious hypocrisy that would follow, you understand.
The most damning element of Sir Keir and lager-gate was surely his choice of beverage. Amongst the bitter-supping Red Wallers, his reputation as a metropolitan continental-style elitist Remoaner is now irrevocably cemented.
"I was looking for Political Betting and I accidentally clicked on a link that took me to GB News. I will be resigning immediately, and apologise for the shame I have brought to my family, friends, and, indeed, the Country."
Honestly, at the risk of being thought frivolous, I'd love it if this guy said that no, he's not going to resign, why the hell should he when the PM has broken the law, lied to Parliament and sacrificed an aide who did nothing wrong, the porn was legal, he's not the only one in Parliament who has watched porn and how many of his accusers can say that they've never done the same etc.
Just to watch the level of spluttering sanctimonious hypocrisy that would follow, you understand.
Though reportedly that was indeed the real offence which led to his party removing any support - allowing suspicion to fall on colleagues by not fessing up immediately.
IF I'd only realized how hot tractors can be, I would have joined the Future Farmers of America when I had the chance!
However, was NOT into becoming an animal's husband. Though the fact that FFA was famed for it's mastery of parliamentary procedure (Robert's Rule of Order) should have been plus for me.
The most damning element of Sir Keir and lager-gate was surely his choice of beverage. Amongst the bitter-supping Red Wallers, his reputation as a metropolitan continental-style elitist Remoaner is now irrevocably cemented.
I was going to sat I am a bitter man but I think my posting about SKS has already proved that!!
Meanwhile the attempted pile-on on Twitter to try and remove Starmer / Raynor has been funny.
"Why haven't the police investigated" - they have "It was illegal" - posting documents showing it was legal "Where did they stay" - ignoring that hotels were open And eventually we get to the truth - "its unfair on Boris"
Why lie about it?
About what? AIUI a spokesperson was asked a question at the time and gave the wrong answer. Its only become a "lie" now because of the attempt to create a scandal. But as a legal campaigning event it doesn't matter if she was there or not because legally she could be.
Do have to laugh though. "Its a work event" accepted without question with the PM's fiance there by teh same people now screeching on Twitter about "conspiracies"
If they were remotely competent they would have corrected the mistake. No downside. As it is phatboi will present it as a lie at pmq and his MPs will bray their heads off
I’m not following this as closely as I should.
But I wondered if the spokesman’s original denial (“she wasn’t there”) was strictly accurate in the sense that Rayner was not in the room when Keir had his beer, and only looks slightly misleading in hindsight.
If Boris wants to use this as “lie”, let him. His word is worthless, and if Keir has any competence he’ll find an appropriate response.
"It was LEGAL for her to be there. It was not legal for your wife to be there" as one example
So why lie about it ? Because that’s how it looks. I think this is a nothing story and I resent my council tax being wasted on this crap but labour not being totally on the level abiut rayner being there looks poor.
OT Before I retired from school I remember trying to access PB in my lunchtime and getting blocked by the firewall. I then had to go cap in hand to the head explaining that it may have had betting in the title but I was there for the politics.
Honestly, at the risk of being thought frivolous, I'd love it if this guy said that no, he's not going to resign, why the hell should he when the PM has broken the law, lied to Parliament and sacrificed an aide who did nothing wrong, the porn was legal, he's not the only one in Parliament who has watched porn and how many of his accusers can say that they've never done the same etc.
Just to watch the level of spluttering sanctimonious hypocrisy that would follow, you understand.
Meanwhile the attempted pile-on on Twitter to try and remove Starmer / Raynor has been funny.
"Why haven't the police investigated" - they have "It was illegal" - posting documents showing it was legal "Where did they stay" - ignoring that hotels were open And eventually we get to the truth - "its unfair on Boris"
Why lie about it?
About what? AIUI a spokesperson was asked a question at the time and gave the wrong answer. Its only become a "lie" now because of the attempt to create a scandal. But as a legal campaigning event it doesn't matter if she was there or not because legally she could be.
Do have to laugh though. "Its a work event" accepted without question with the PM's fiance there by teh same people now screeching on Twitter about "conspiracies"
If they were remotely competent they would have corrected the mistake. No downside. As it is phatboi will present it as a lie at pmq and his MPs will bray their heads off
I’m not following this as closely as I should.
But I wondered if the spokesman’s original denial (“she wasn’t there”) was strictly accurate in the sense that Rayner was not in the room when Keir had his beer, and only looks slightly misleading in hindsight.
If Boris wants to use this as “lie”, let him. His word is worthless, and if Keir has any competence he’ll find an appropriate response.
"It was LEGAL for her to be there. It was not legal for your wife to be there" as one example
So why lie about it ? Because that’s how it looks. I think this is a nothing story and I resent my council tax being wasted on this crap but labour not being totally on the level abiut rayner being there looks poor.
I've got no skin in this particular game. Have read somewhere that the "was Rayner there" question was about a very specific part of it. And she wasn't. So they said no. So its only a lie depending on what the question was.
What we do know is that regardless of which people labour had legally up there campaigning, its not remotely equivalent to what has been going on in Downing Street. No matter how many times the Tories try and ramp it.
The most damning element of Sir Keir and lager-gate was surely his choice of beverage. Amongst the bitter-supping Red Wallers, his reputation as a metropolitan continental-style elitist Remoaner is now irrevocably cemented.
I was going to sat I am a bitter man but I think my posting about SKS has already proved that!!
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h "It was accidental after looking for tractors" is the most staggering justification in the history of politics. Not just British politics. Any politics.
Meanwhile the attempted pile-on on Twitter to try and remove Starmer / Raynor has been funny.
"Why haven't the police investigated" - they have "It was illegal" - posting documents showing it was legal "Where did they stay" - ignoring that hotels were open And eventually we get to the truth - "its unfair on Boris"
Why lie about it?
About what? AIUI a spokesperson was asked a question at the time and gave the wrong answer. Its only become a "lie" now because of the attempt to create a scandal. But as a legal campaigning event it doesn't matter if she was there or not because legally she could be.
Do have to laugh though. "Its a work event" accepted without question with the PM's fiance there by teh same people now screeching on Twitter about "conspiracies"
If they were remotely competent they would have corrected the mistake. No downside. As it is phatboi will present it as a lie at pmq and his MPs will bray their heads off
I’m not following this as closely as I should.
But I wondered if the spokesman’s original denial (“she wasn’t there”) was strictly accurate in the sense that Rayner was not in the room when Keir had his beer, and only looks slightly misleading in hindsight.
If Boris wants to use this as “lie”, let him. His word is worthless, and if Keir has any competence he’ll find an appropriate response.
"It was LEGAL for her to be there. It was not legal for your wife to be there" as one example
So why lie about it ? Because that’s how it looks. I think this is a nothing story and I resent my council tax being wasted on this crap but labour not being totally on the level abiut rayner being there looks poor.
I've got no skin in this particular game. Have read somewhere that the "was Rayner there" question was about a very specific part of it. And she wasn't. So they said no. So its only a lie depending on what the question was.
What we do know is that regardless of which people labour had legally up there campaigning, its not remotely equivalent to what has been going on in Downing Street. No matter how many times the Tories try and ramp it.
You are having a fight with yourself. Labour have some nothing substantively wrong. They have been presentationally grossly incompetent. The end.
The tactical voting by some unionists and others for the SDLP in South Down, which boosted the nationalist share at Westminster elections, appears to have disappeared by 2019.
South Down is another one of those places where candidates from outside of the constituency’s main parties sometimes win significant numbers of votes. In the 2019 Local Government elections, these would have been worth a full quota. . . .
SF and SDLP votes are divided between their candidates in the same proportions as 2017.
There is also one Independent standing, Patrick Clarke, a former Slieve Croob Independent Councillor, previously of Alliance and before that the SDLP.
All three of my projections agree that there would be 2 SF and 1 SDLP Safe seats. Beyond that, there are quite a range of possibilities.
The Central projection has Alliance also Safe, with the final seat being either the UUP or DUP with equally Good possibilities.
One of the other projections also has Alliance Safe with the UUP and DUP both having a Good possibility of taking the final seat.
In the third projection, there would come a point at which the second SDLP, Alliance and UUP candidates would be likely to be very close, with one of them facing elimination. If the second SDLP is unlucky the final two seats go to Alliance and the UUP. If the UUP exits then they go to Alliance and the DUP, and if Alliance falls out then the second SDLP and the UUP have them.
On none of these projections does the TUV get a look in. Unless, of course, the controversies surrounding the DUP candidate selection and the public backing of the TUV candidate by Jim Wells persuade a substantial proportion of DUP voters to switch. Seems unlikely, but nevertheless one to watch.
Let’s assume (big assumption) that the LDs can take T&H.
They are starting to build up seats which will require defending, but will likely be lost in any subsequent election. I think they will lose North Salop, and while I think they can keep A&C, it will be expensive to hold.
Good tactics, but some loss of strategic position.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
SO where oh where is Leon today? My own guess is that he's headed for New Orleans, at least eventually.
IF so, recommend that he check out this legendary Louisiana seafood restaurant, located at Pass Manchac which connects Lake Pontchartrain to the west and Lake Maurepas to the east.
Let’s assume (big assumption) that the LDs can take T&H.
They are starting to build up seats which will require defending, but will likely be lost in any subsequent election. I think they will lose North Salop, and while I think they can keep A&C, it will be expensive to hold.
Good tactics, but some loss of strategic position.
What key Lib Dem target seats is North Shropshire really going to be diverting attention from?
To be honest, there's no serious downside to winning by-elections as it adds to credibility and there is some chance of defending. The one exception may be Eastleigh when Huhne resigned - it wrongly convinced the Lib Dems they had more hope of defending marginals in 2015 than they did - they should have been abandoning defences they continued long after it was realistic.
Fuck I am disappointed by starmer and Rayner. Even if they were genuinely mistaken when they made the statement she wasn't there she must have read it and said yes I fucking was. Their USP for me began and ended with: not liars. Turns out they are, and stupid with it
OT Before I retired from school I remember trying to access PB in my lunchtime and getting blocked by the firewall. I then had to go cap in hand to the head explaining that it may have had betting in the title but I was there for the politics.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h "It was accidental after looking for tractors" is the most staggering justification in the history of politics. Not just British politics. Any politics.
Lucky makes some good points, though yours truly & others can (and would) quibble re: details, in general he's correct.
Note that in the first century and more of Congress, members of both Senate and House did NOT have assigned offices OR staff. But they DID have desks in their respective chambers, and used them to work on their correspondence, read reports and newspapers, etc. etc. when the body was in session.
When the US House expanded to point it could NOT accommodate sufficient desks for all the members, they were removed and seating similar to House of Commons installed.
US Senators still have desks in the Senate chamber in addition to their offices. In deed, the desks have been passed down through the decades. For example: > Daniel Webster desk = now Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) > Henry Clay desk = now Rand Paul (R-KY) > Jefferson Davis desk = now Roger Wicker (R-MS) > John C Calhoun desk = now Lindsey Graham (R-SC) > Strom Thurmond desk = now Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Note that by tradition (sometimes rather recent) the first four are assigned to senior senators from states indicated. As for Strom's desk, it is associated with his (in)famous filibuster against Civil Rights Act, in part because he carved “spoke 24 hrs. 18 min. from this desk in 1957” on it.
OT Before I retired from school I remember trying to access PB in my lunchtime and getting blocked by the firewall. I then had to go cap in hand to the head explaining that it may have had betting in the title but I was there for the politics.
I used to get that every about every other page when trying to access PB, which seemed very strange, so wondered if maybe it was actually triggering some kind of obscenity filer when words like shit, fuck or psephology came up.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
Fan tradition though I am you are right there's clearly little point to most time spent in the Chamber and thats bad.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h "It was accidental after looking for tractors" is the most staggering justification in the history of politics. Not just British politics. Any politics.
I seem to vaguely remember an old Frankie Boyle Mock The Week segment about the...interesting excuses politicians came up with for explaining to the public why they'd done drugs - "oh it was rubbed onto me by a passing tramp" (or something like that).
This tractor thing is certainly in that sort of territory.
So Parish is now gone. An interesting by-election awaits.
It’s insane. He was accused of something. Not found guilty, broke no laws, yet but pressured to resign and has.
Bojo and Sunak broke the law and yet hang on.
Clearly one of them felt their position would end up less defensible. The others broke a law but I'm willing to bet most people at some point broke the ridiculous forced domestic imprisonment regime of 2020-21, e.g. unnecessary runs outside or visits to shops.
So Parish is now gone. An interesting by-election awaits.
It’s insane. He was accused of something. Not found guilty, broke no laws, yet but pressured to resign and has.
Bojo and Sunak broke the law and yet hang on.
Clearly one of them felt their position would end up less defensible. The others broke a law but I'm willing to bet most people at some point broke the ridiculous forced domestic imprisonment regime of 2020-21, e.g. unnecessary runs outside or visits to shops.
I’m sure they did, I did, but then they weren’t responsible for the laws.
IF your's truly ever makes it into the US Senate (do NOT bet on it!) then would want to be assigned to desk once occupied by one of WA State's greatest senators: Henry (Scoop) Jackson or Warren (Maggie) Magnuson.
OR desk once assigned to Robert C Byrd of West Virginia, Paul Simon of Illinois or George Norris of Nebraska. Two of my favorite senators, albeit for different reasons.
Let’s assume (big assumption) that the LDs can take T&H.
They are starting to build up seats which will require defending, but will likely be lost in any subsequent election. I think they will lose North Salop, and while I think they can keep A&C, it will be expensive to hold.
Good tactics, but some loss of strategic position.
What key Lib Dem target seats is North Shropshire really going to be diverting attention from?
To be honest, there's no serious downside to winning by-elections as it adds to credibility and there is some chance of defending. The one exception may be Eastleigh when Huhne resigned - it wrongly convinced the Lib Dems they had more hope of defending marginals in 2015 than they did - they should have been abandoning defences they continued long after it was realistic.
They only have a dozen seats (give or take). They could legitimately aspire to a dozen, maybe 20 more. Brutal focus is critical.
Fuck I am disappointed by starmer and Rayner. Even if they were genuinely mistaken when they made the statement she wasn't there she must have read it and said yes I fucking was. Their USP for me began and ended with: not liars. Turns out they are, and stupid with it
I am surprised that Fabricant hasn't come out with a talking head video suggesting that teachers are often to be found having one off the wrist at morning break. Anaesthesiologists have to while away the time while the real doctors are doing the operation.
I am surprised that Fabricant hasn't come out with a talking head video suggesting that teachers are often to be found having one off the wrist at morning break. Anaesthesiologists have to while away the time while the real doctors are doing the operation.
Please don't give the stupid bastard any more ideas...
Comments
"Legend....."
Just to watch the level of spluttering sanctimonious hypocrisy that would follow, you understand.
However, was NOT into becoming an animal's husband. Though the fact that FFA was famed for it's mastery of parliamentary procedure (Robert's Rule of Order) should have been plus for me.
Plenty of time for us to throw it away!
👍
What we do know is that regardless of which people labour had legally up there campaigning, its not remotely equivalent to what has been going on in Downing Street. No matter how many times the Tories try and ramp it.
Just Caught Bashing
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
"It was accidental after looking for tractors" is the most staggering justification in the history of politics. Not just British politics. Any politics.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1520403500399738881
https://www.sluggerotoole.com/
The tactical voting by some unionists and others for the SDLP in South Down, which boosted the nationalist share at Westminster elections, appears to have disappeared by 2019.
South Down is another one of those places where candidates from outside of the constituency’s main parties sometimes win significant numbers of votes. In the 2019 Local Government elections, these would have been worth a full quota. . . .
SF and SDLP votes are divided between their candidates in the same proportions as 2017.
There is also one Independent standing, Patrick Clarke, a former Slieve Croob Independent Councillor, previously of Alliance and before that the SDLP.
All three of my projections agree that there would be 2 SF and 1 SDLP Safe seats. Beyond that, there are quite a range of possibilities.
The Central projection has Alliance also Safe, with the final seat being either the UUP or DUP with equally Good possibilities.
One of the other projections also has Alliance Safe with the UUP and DUP both having a Good possibility of taking the final seat.
In the third projection, there would come a point at which the second SDLP, Alliance and UUP candidates would be likely to be very close, with one of them facing elimination. If the second SDLP is unlucky the final two seats go to Alliance and the UUP. If the UUP exits then they go to Alliance and the DUP, and if Alliance falls out then the second SDLP and the UUP have them.
On none of these projections does the TUV get a look in. Unless, of course, the controversies surrounding the DUP candidate selection and the public backing of the TUV candidate by Jim Wells persuade a substantial proportion of DUP voters to switch. Seems unlikely, but nevertheless one to watch.
SSI: Mountains of Mourne - Don McLean [written by Percy French]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR4-zYE0jqQ
May your wagers always prosper! AND may your tractors always start!!
They are starting to build up seats which will require defending, but will likely be lost in any subsequent election. I think they will lose North Salop, and while I think they can keep A&C, it will be expensive to hold.
Good tactics, but some loss of strategic position.
Had 10 points after 4 games. 14 after 7.
But for that we'd be down already.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
IF so, recommend that he check out this legendary Louisiana seafood restaurant, located at Pass Manchac which connects Lake Pontchartrain to the west and Lake Maurepas to the east.
https://middendorfsrestaurant.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchac,_Louisiana
That's why we are going down 😡
So I'm told.
I have spent the day bashing behind a Tractor. I am about to bash behind a pair of Tractors double headed. After that they will be top and tail.
Diesel Gala at the Great Central Railway!
To be honest, there's no serious downside to winning by-elections as it adds to credibility and there is some chance of defending. The one exception may be Eastleigh when Huhne resigned - it wrongly convinced the Lib Dems they had more hope of defending marginals in 2015 than they did - they should have been abandoning defences they continued long after it was realistic.
Note that in the first century and more of Congress, members of both Senate and House did NOT have assigned offices OR staff. But they DID have desks in their respective chambers, and used them to work on their correspondence, read reports and newspapers, etc. etc. when the body was in session.
When the US House expanded to point it could NOT accommodate sufficient desks for all the members, they were removed and seating similar to House of Commons installed.
US Senators still have desks in the Senate chamber in addition to their offices. In deed, the desks have been passed down through the decades. For example:
> Daniel Webster desk = now Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
> Henry Clay desk = now Rand Paul (R-KY)
> Jefferson Davis desk = now Roger Wicker (R-MS)
> John C Calhoun desk = now Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
> Strom Thurmond desk = now Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Note that by tradition (sometimes rather recent) the first four are assigned to senior senators from states indicated. As for Strom's desk, it is associated with his (in)famous filibuster against Civil Rights Act, in part because he carved “spoke 24 hrs. 18 min. from this desk in 1957” on it.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/81967/hot-seats-5-famous-senate-desks
Bojo and Sunak broke the law and yet hang on.
This tractor thing is certainly in that sort of territory.
sounds very Massey.
BoJo and Sunak, none. Pathetic.
It's for mass debating not masturbating.
OR desk once assigned to Robert C Byrd of West Virginia, Paul Simon of Illinois or George Norris of Nebraska. Two of my favorite senators, albeit for different reasons.
His logic’s gone skewy.
I guess that’s what matters.
At least historically (see PG Wodehouse), the slang meaning of 'beaver' in the UK was 'a bearded man'.
That is all.
Just so I could make a joke about bashing the bishop.