Boris Johnson, his wife & 5 special advisers were issued with questionnaires by Scotland Yard over alleged ‘Abba party’ in his flat on night Dominic Cummings left No 10
No @MrEd Beto is not a sick son of a bitch to make a school shooting a political issue, school shootings are a political issue.
The sick sons of bitches are those politicians who are prepared to stand by while school after school is the venue of a mass murder and politicians fail to do their damned job and tackle the issue.
The safety of the public is the number one role of the state to ensure, if politicians can't even take school shootings seriously enough to realise it is a political issue, then what is the point of them?
Whilst the latest massacre of children makes me angry and upset, its long long past being a political issue. Because you get what youy vote for, and someone upthread put it beautifully - people value their guns more than they value their children.
America can't be fixed because America wants to be broken. We may find it appalling but they don't - and its their society. The civilised world should be welcoming to sane Americans who want to flee Gilead, but I can't see how there is any political solution when the people voting are so emotionally backwards.
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
Rishi shortened two points to 14 in Betfair's next Prime Minister market, and four points into 10 for next Conservative leader.
He is value at those odds. The support package is about right (bar the £300 extra to even millionaire pensioners, based on age - really voting intention - rather than need) as is the windfall tax. When something does actually need to be done Sunak is reasonable at doing it. Just a shame the Tory party can't get ahead of things like this but rather spends six months criticising such ideas as radical communism, then flip flops to they are brilliant.
That £300 isn’t really voter intent - I can see the argument that goes we need to identify need - but that costs money and time best so we will use Aggie as a proxy for that identification.
Then again I’ve seen how much it costs to identify needy people especially when HMRC still won’t combine their systems with DWP (for multiple reasons, some policy some just security).
Pensioners are the richest cohort. How on earth is selecting that group a proxy for need?
Within that cohort they are 2 million pensioners living in relative poverty who will be very grateful for the £400 grant, £650 grant and unto £600 winter fuel allowance
Yes, of course there are poor pensioners as there are poor non pensioners.
The extra money on top of the £400 for every household should have gone to those in relative poverty, regardless of age.
Why should millionaire pensioners get money they will never even spend when others will be starving and freezing this winter?
Because
(a) saves money on admin: no obvious way to do it otherwise without excluding a target group (b) in my experience even elderly with some money tend not to spend it on themselves but worry about saving it for their grandchildren, often rather foolishly - and risk hypothermia and so on.
Just not true.
Simply re-allocate the £300 for voting Tory to the 8 million poorest households on means tested benefits who are already identified in the scheme or restore the £20 UC uplift.
And as for the emotional bit there are also parents starving themselves to illness so they can provide some food for their kids.
Never really got why a right to bear arms, even if it did mean you can pretty much buy what you like, extended to things like open carry or to bear them anywhere you please, which some extend it to as a related issue.
There weren't firearms you could easily conceal in 1792 or whenever
"A pistol said to have been presented by Congress to John Paul Jones (1747-1792), a newly appointed captain in the Continental Navy, on October 10, 1776."
Some scale would be helpful but I can’t imagine that fitting in a pocket, nor coming out again in less than 20 minutes with all those sticky out bits
And I think open carry is the easier permit to get in the US
Boris Johnson, his wife & 5 special advisers were issued with questionnaires by Scotland Yard over alleged ‘Abba party’ in his flat on night Dominic Cummings left No 10
Then he probably was if they have not had a fine or do cranks like you seriously expect the Police just to issue fines to satisfy your personal political agenda ?
A questions about the next GE. Is a minority government feasible? Even in the short term?
Let's say CP wins most seats but no majority and no CP partnership with other parties is possible. Can CP decide to govern on a minority basis or would the fact that the LP COULD form a majority with other parties take precedent?
Secondly, I know that a minority government is unsustainable but if no party could get a coalition or other partnership with other parties could the CP say there must be another GE in three months and we will govern on minority basis until then?
This has significance for betting purposes.
The incumbent has first dibs at forming a government, but under your scenario would not be able to pass bills. If they tried it would fail and then have to recommend the LoO try to form a government. If they can agree confidence and supply with other parties, they will proceed. If not , if no other government is possible we go back to the polls.
Yes I get that but under your scenario the Next Government market (Smarkets) would settle as "CP Minority" - even though this would be short-lived. But how likely is this? I'm trying to make sense of the Smarkets market which has LP Minority and Conservative Minority heading the market with a combined probability of almost 70%.
It’s a gray area if Boris tries to carry on, he would not go to see HM. I guess the obvious milestone would either be a Queens speech or first PMQs.
Queens Speech, budgets and confidence votes are the only ones that matter for this topic
No @MrEd Beto is not a sick son of a bitch to make a school shooting a political issue, school shootings are a political issue.
The sick sons of bitches are those politicians who are prepared to stand by while school after school is the venue of a mass murder and politicians fail to do their damned job and tackle the issue.
The safety of the public is the number one role of the state to ensure, if politicians can't even take school shootings seriously enough to realise it is a political issue, then what is the point of them?
Whilst the latest massacre of children makes me angry and upset, its long long past being a political issue. Because you get what youy vote for, and someone upthread put it beautifully - people value their guns more than they value their children.
America can't be fixed because America wants to be broken. We may find it appalling but they don't - and its their society. The civilised world should be welcoming to sane Americans who want to flee Gilead, but I can't see how there is any political solution when the people voting are so emotionally backwards.
Back to @BartholomewRoberts, yes, Beto was a narcissistic c0ck for what he did. There is a time and place for everything and barging into that press conference and doing his stunt was not the time for it. It screamed "Look at me!!!!". The biggest winner from Beto's stunt was the Uvdale Police Department as he deflected attention from the many rightful questions about their actions during the shooting.
Boris Johnson, his wife & 5 special advisers were issued with questionnaires by Scotland Yard over alleged ‘Abba party’ in his flat on night Dominic Cummings left No 10
Then he probably was if they have not had a fine or do cranks like you seriously expect the Police just to issue fines to satisfy your personal political agenda ?
I also say the same about Starmer.
Those done for illegal raves during the pandemic should have told the police that they were auditioning for a new dance company they were considering setting up. I am sure that would have gone down well with the police (when they read the questionnaires....) and no fines would have been issued. Very sure.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.
Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.
I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was). The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.
Though that isn't the entire story. According to the latest figures the percentage economically inactive is up, and stil 1.1% higher than pre-pandemic:
Errr, causation or correlation? Obviously, you can write off 2020-2022 as well as being due to Brexit...
On one level it doesn't matter too much what the cause is - if it isn't fixed the British economy is only going to weaken further over time.
I always said that I didn't think membership of the EU wasn't the be-all and end-all of Britain's economic destiny. That what mattered more was how well the country was run. Being out of the EU and having very poor management of the country is probably the worst combination though.
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Labour has bought up all the advertising on the Conservative Home website - the Tory members’ online bible - over the next few days and this is what readers will see…
Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.
Tangentially, Dracula was published 125 years ago yesterday. There were events in Aberdeenshire this week to mark it, since it was mostly written here. Bram Stoker apparently holidayed on the east coast most summers to get away from London and his boss Henry Irving.
Boris Johnson, his wife & 5 special advisers were issued with questionnaires by Scotland Yard over alleged ‘Abba party’ in his flat on night Dominic Cummings left No 10
Then he probably was if they have not had a fine or do cranks like you seriously expect the Police just to issue fines to satisfy your personal political agenda ?
I also say the same about Starmer.
Those done for illegal raves during the pandemic should have told the police that they were auditioning for a new dance company they were considering setting up. I am sure that would have gone down well with the police (when they read the questionnaires....) and no fines would have been issued. Very sure.
Yes, because Number 10 were holding illegal raves. Of course they were
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
Errr, causation or correlation? Obviously, you can write off 2020-2022 as well as being due to Brexit...
On one level it doesn't matter too much what the cause is - if it isn't fixed the British economy is only going to weaken further over time.
I always said that I didn't think membership of the EU wasn't the be-all and end-all of Britain's economic destiny. That what mattered more was how well the country was run. Being out of the EU and having very poor management of the country is probably the worst combination though.
Yes this is something that people who throw around the term remoaner don't get. I would definitely prefer a Brexit government led by Rory Stewart to a remain government run by Boris Johnson. It is not Brexit alone that is the problem, it is the whole culture and ideology around it that seeks to maintain power through division and management of the media rather than management of the country and its future.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
A million quid lasts a year if you spaff it properly, or buys you an income of 12,000 a year before tax or something. He is trying to keep up with the Osbornes and Camerons to whom that is chump change
His other problem with retirement is the usual despot one that everybody hates him and he needs to retain his superpowers to ward them off. He daren't go up against the Privileges Committee as former PM boris Johnson.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
I haven't got one but may I tentatively ask what's wrong with the Evoque?
Reviews are very good: What Car? Top Gear and others:
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
No @MrEd Beto is not a sick son of a bitch to make a school shooting a political issue, school shootings are a political issue.
The sick sons of bitches are those politicians who are prepared to stand by while school after school is the venue of a mass murder and politicians fail to do their damned job and tackle the issue.
The safety of the public is the number one role of the state to ensure, if politicians can't even take school shootings seriously enough to realise it is a political issue, then what is the point of them?
Whilst the latest massacre of children makes me angry and upset, its long long past being a political issue. Because you get what youy vote for, and someone upthread put it beautifully - people value their guns more than they value their children.
America can't be fixed because America wants to be broken. We may find it appalling but they don't - and its their society. The civilised world should be welcoming to sane Americans who want to flee Gilead, but I can't see how there is any political solution when the people voting are so emotionally backwards.
Back to @BartholomewRoberts, yes, Beto was a narcissistic c0ck for what he did. There is a time and place for everything and barging into that press conference and doing his stunt was not the time for it. It screamed "Look at me!!!!". The biggest winner from Beto's stunt was the Uvdale Police Department as he deflected attention from the many rightful questions about their actions during the shooting.
An opinion shared by all god-fearing "guns before children" murricans.
Which is why the civilised ones should move to civilised countries.
Errr, causation or correlation? Obviously, you can write off 2020-2022 as well as being due to Brexit...
On one level it doesn't matter too much what the cause is - if it isn't fixed the British economy is only going to weaken further over time.
I always said that I didn't think membership of the EU wasn't the be-all and end-all of Britain's economic destiny. That what mattered more was how well the country was run. Being out of the EU and having very poor management of the country is probably the worst combination though.
Yes this is something that people who throw around the term remoaner don't get. I would definitely prefer a Brexit government led by Rory Stewart to a remain government run by Boris Johnson. It is not Brexit alone that is the problem, it is the whole culture and ideology around it that seeks to maintain power through division and management of the media rather than management of the country and its future.
The weirdest thing of all is the usually dress up their criticism in anti-Boris language. "I also think what Boris has done is unacceptable but remoaner blah blah traitor waffle waffle you just hate Boris because he beat you yadda yadda."
It's extremely weird, and as such I'm going to adopt the same pattern of behaviour. From now on, every time I hear criticism of Jimmy Savile, I'm going to agree that what he did was terrible but also attack the person attacking him by claiming they're just jealous. Jealous, because their man Tony Blackburn didn't get as much of a look in on TOTP as they would have liked.
Labour has bought up all the advertising on the Conservative Home website - the Tory members’ online bible - over the next few days and this is what readers will see…
Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.
Tangentially, Dracula was published 125 years ago yesterday. There were events in Aberdeenshire this week to mark it, since it was mostly written here. Bram Stoker apparently holidayed on the east coast most summers to get away from London and his boss Henry Irving.
Yep. For all that Whitby gets the kudos it really is Cruden Bay where the action is. And Slains Castle whose ruins stand on the clifftop overlooking the sea. Want to go into the octagonal room described as being in Drac's castle? Its up here.
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
I haven't got one but may I tentatively ask what's wrong with the Evoque?
Reviews are very good: What Car? Top Gear and others:
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
I haven't got one but may I tentatively ask what's wrong with the Evoque?
Reviews are very good: What Car? Top Gear and others:
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
In terms of being the established church yes.
The Church of England is only the established church in England as has been the case since 1530 before which it was the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may be first amongst equals in the global Anglican communion but the only Anglican church the monarch is Supreme Governor of is the Church of England. So quite clearly the person who knows nothing on this is you
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
I agree. Maybe it's the fact that he's the only potential candidate to actually say he will run.
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
He's a French citizen. Do you see the tory members voting for that? They wouldn't even directly instructed to by Aled Jones on Songs of Praise.
FFS, the Tory party is now the party of LIDL shoppers?
We should be the party of Fortnum & Mason shoppers and at worst the party of Waitrose shoppers.
Shocking.
They should be the party of Aldi, not Lidl. Just coming to the end of a couple of cases of a very decent Cru Bourgeois (now sadly out of stock) from them at a very reasonable price indeed.
Just about the whole of the Aldi wine range is worth investigating. You can't buy their £14 champagne any more for love nor, er, money. I still have a case or two of it and it more than stands up to the grands marques.
My entire spend at Aldi is wine and their fancier yogurts. Their ice wine is usually worthy of a visit in November as like the champagne it's half the price of anyone else's.
But equally neither Fortnum and Masons (overpriced and the 2 suppliers I know who sell to Fortnum and Masons also sell to Lewis and Cooper in Northallerton (so go their for hampers) and I've always said you only like Waitrose if you haven't seen or got a Booths.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
I haven't got one but may I tentatively ask what's wrong with the Evoque?
Reviews are very good: What Car? Top Gear and others:
While Labour’s formed minority admins in councils like @Edinburgh_CC with Conservative help, the only place they’ve actually broken @AnasSarwar pledge of no coalitions with Tories/SNP is @dgcouncil with … the SNP
Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.
Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.
I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was). The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.
That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.
If your house consistently earns more for you than your job, then don't be surprised when the 50+ buy more houses and quit their jobs.
A housing market crash would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, as well as provide some intergenerational fairness.
The problem is that it would also negatively impact labour mobility, as people can't move to new areas if they are stuck with negative equity.
For a couple of years, for a minority of people, yes. But the problem of that is absolutely dwarfed by the problems that an ever-rising house price and unaffordable homes presents.
The risk of negative equity has to exist or else there will only ever be a one-way ratchet on prices.
If it were me I'd make mortgages non-recourse, which would solve the problem and make banks a bit less thrilled at the thought of housing bubbles. Or tell them to make negative equity portable.
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
He's a French citizen. Do you see the tory members voting for that? They wouldn't even directly instructed to by Aled Jones on Songs of Praise.
Well Boris' dad has gone French too, as long as they chunter the right things for the Mail and Express not much else seems to matter.
FFS, the Tory party is now the party of LIDL shoppers?
We should be the party of Fortnum & Mason shoppers and at worst the party of Waitrose shoppers.
Shocking.
They should be the party of Aldi, not Lidl. Just coming to the end of a couple of cases of a very decent Cru Bourgeois (now sadly out of stock) from them at a very reasonable price indeed.
Just about the whole of the Aldi wine range is worth investigating. You can't buy their £14 champagne any more for love nor, er, money. I still have a case or two of it and it more than stands up to the grands marques.
My entire spend at Aldi is wine and their fancier yogurts. Their ice wine is usually worthy of a visit in November as like the champagne it's half the price of anyone else's.
But equally neither Fortnum and Masons (overpriced and the 2 suppliers I know who sell to Fortnum and Masons also sell to Lewis and Cooper in Northallerton (so go their for hampers) and I've always said you only like Waitrose if you haven't seen or got a Booths.
I have had Ice Cider and very nice it is too, perfect as a desert drink. Will have to try Ice wine.
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
I agree. Maybe it's the fact that he's the only potential candidate to actually say he will run.
The best value back in the market is Steve Barclay. Not really a banker but a good outsider.
While Labour’s formed minority admins in councils like @Edinburgh_CC with Conservative help, the only place they’ve actually broken @AnasSarwar pledge of no coalitions with Tories/SNP is @dgcouncil with … the SNP
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
He's a French citizen. Do you see the tory members voting for that? They wouldn't even directly instructed to by Aled Jones on Songs of Praise.
Also Catholic and Jewish, and a German surname.
But I dunno. for a lot of people none of that matters and for another lot there's so much to hate there that it all sort of cancels out, and he slips through the middle. I don't see how he can not relinquish french citizenship (he is dual atm), he can always get it back again later.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
Hey Dura, now I'm doing no mileage at all and it looks like that'll be the case for the foreseeable, I'm thinking about spending somewhere between £15k-£20k on a late model L322. Low mileage as I can get. Prepared to spend the money keeping it in good nick when something goes wrong, but intend to service it myself.
I know it's not the most sane thing to do in the world, but I'm thinking sod it, why not?
While Labour’s formed minority admins in councils like @Edinburgh_CC with Conservative help, the only place they’ve actually broken @AnasSarwar pledge of no coalitions with Tories/SNP is @dgcouncil with … the SNP
I’m not saying the Edinburgh property market is mental but my old house which we sold for 300k three years ago just sold for 400k. 33% price increase in 3 years!
Never really got why a right to bear arms, even if it did mean you can pretty much buy what you like, extended to things like open carry or to bear them anywhere you please, which some extend it to as a related issue.
There weren't firearms you could easily conceal in 1792 or whenever
"A pistol said to have been presented by Congress to John Paul Jones (1747-1792), a newly appointed captain in the Continental Navy, on October 10, 1776."
Some scale would be helpful but I can’t imagine that fitting in a pocket, nor coming out again in less than 20 minutes with all those sticky out bits
And I think open carry is the easier permit to get in the US
They were for coat pockets, IIRC.
Pocket pistols were very popular - zillions made and many still around.
The impression that all flintlocks were huge has been helped by Hollywood. They tend to use horse pistols as generic pistols for "period" films. Much as they equip modern heroes & villains, very often, with huge modern pistols.
Not sure what this really has to do with the modern American fascinations with arming bears, or whatever...
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
In terms of being the established church yes.
The Church of England is only the established church in England as has been the case since 1530 before which it was the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may be first amongst equals in the global Anglican communion but the only Anglican church the monarch is Supreme Governor of is the Church of England. So quite clearly the person who knows nothing on this is you
the Church of England relates to England only
It is the GLOBAL leader of the Anglican communion. The Archbishop of Cantebury leads not only the Church of England but is the head of the golbal communion of churches.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
He’d get a million quid JUST IN THE UK
However he is also widely known around the world - and he has an incredible story to tell, from Brexit to Covid, he has been central to two global stories (absolutely central in the first). Plus he writes well and he has lots of colourful anecdotes from a colourful life
He’d get a multi-million deal in the USA, and fat wads in Europe, etc
Conservatively, he can expect to earn £5-10m from his memoirs, and then a chunk more from the Netflix adaptation
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
The problem is that everyone "likely to win" is really no more likely to win *before a campaign is declared* than the outsiders. And the numbers are all so close that there's very little trading value. What was the likelihood of David Cameron winning, looking back at 2004? Close to zero, until after his conference speech.
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
In terms of being the established church yes.
The Church of England is only the established church in England as has been the case since 1530 before which it was the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may be first amongst equals in the global Anglican communion but the only Anglican church the monarch is Supreme Governor of is the Church of England. So quite clearly the person who knows nothing on this is you
the Church of England relates to England only
It is the GLOBAL leader of the Anglican communion. The Archbishop of Cantebury leads not only the Church of England but is the head of the golbal communion of churches.
As the ESTABLISHED church which was the whole point of this discussion, yes the Church of England relates to England only. The Queen is Supreme Governor and head of the Church of England only NOT the wider Anglican communion.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion only, he does not exercise any authority outside the Church of England
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
In terms of being the established church yes.
The Church of England is only the established church in England as has been the case since 1530 before which it was the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may be first amongst equals in the global Anglican communion but the only Anglican church the monarch is Supreme Governor of is the Church of England. So quite clearly the person who knows nothing on this is you
the Church of England relates to England only
It is the GLOBAL leader of the Anglican communion. The Archbishop of Cantebury leads not only the Church of England but is the head of the golbal communion of churches.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
Hey Dura, now I'm doing no mileage at all and it looks like that'll be the case for the foreseeable, I'm thinking about spending somewhere between £15k-£20k on a late model L322. Low mileage as I can get. Prepared to spend the money keeping it in good nick when something goes wrong, but intend to service it myself.
I know it's not the most sane thing to do in the world, but I'm thinking sod it, why not?
I'd be interested in your opinion...
The L322 is the one with two complete wiring looms - E65 BMW 7 Series and JLR's own loosely connected together with West Midlands hopes and dreams. They are very complex and have a hideous reputation for unreliability. The diesels are slower than Mark Francois running in Crocs, the petrol ones are thirstier than Therese Coffey and they all rust.
I personally wouldn't but don't let that stop you, if that's what you want. I've bought plenty of completely insane cars in my time. Just resign yourself to the fact that you'll be spending every night on eBay looking for bits and every weekend under it.
I’m not saying the Edinburgh property market is mental but my old house which we sold for 300k three years ago just sold for 400k. 33% price increase in 3 years!
The English queuing up to buy property there for when the Scots become independent and rejoin the EU.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
He’d get a million quid JUST IN THE UK
However he is also widely known around the world - and he has an incredible story to tell, from Brexit to Covid, he has been central to two global stories (absolutely central in the first). Plus he writes well and he has lots of colourful anecdotes from a colourful life
He’d get a multi-million deal in the USA, and fat wads in Europe, etc
Conservatively, he can expect to earn £5-10m from his memoirs, and then a chunk more from the Netflix adaptation
I admit, despite myself, that a Boris Johnson memoir/autobiography would be fascinating, but for one small caveat; I wouldn't believe a word of it.
The story you mention is in there, along with many less than savoury episodes, but I wouldn't trust Johnson to tell it. What you would get is a purple mess of self-aggrandising prose. He'd make a fascinating subject for a Robert Caro type.
All that said, you're right that it would be very lucrative for him, lucre being the apposite term.
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
In terms of being the established church yes.
The Church of England is only the established church in England as has been the case since 1530 before which it was the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may be first amongst equals in the global Anglican communion but the only Anglican church the monarch is Supreme Governor of is the Church of England. So quite clearly the person who knows nothing on this is you
the Church of England relates to England only
It is the GLOBAL leader of the Anglican communion. The Archbishop of Cantebury leads not only the Church of England but is the head of the golbal communion of churches.
As the ESTABLISHED church which was the whole point of this discussion, yes the Church of England relates to England only. The Queen is Supreme Governor and head of the Church of England only NOT the wider Anglican communion.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion only, he does not exercise any authority outside the Church of England
Don't make stupid comments like "the Church of England relates to England only"
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
The problem is that everyone "likely to win" is really no more likely to win *before a campaign is declared* than the outsiders. And the numbers are all so close that there's very little trading value. What was the likelihood of David Cameron winning, looking back at 2004? Close to zero, until after his conference speech.
Disagree strongly with half of that, there is huge margin on these markets, although do agree that generally you should be looking to lay the shorter price runners and back some plausible outsiders. Today that would be backing the likes of Patel, Barclay, Baker, Coffey, Shapps and laying the Hat.
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
In terms of being the established church yes.
The Church of England is only the established church in England as has been the case since 1530 before which it was the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may be first amongst equals in the global Anglican communion but the only Anglican church the monarch is Supreme Governor of is the Church of England. So quite clearly the person who knows nothing on this is you
the Church of England relates to England only
It is the GLOBAL leader of the Anglican communion. The Archbishop of Cantebury leads not only the Church of England but is the head of the golbal communion of churches.
As the ESTABLISHED church which was the whole point of this discussion, yes the Church of England relates to England only. The Queen is Supreme Governor and head of the Church of England only NOT the wider Anglican communion.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion only, he does not exercise any authority outside the Church of England
Don't make stupid comments like "the Church of England relates to England only"
In terms of the established church it does. The Queen is head of the Church of England only NOT the wider Anglican communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority outside the Church of England either.
No @MrEd Beto is not a sick son of a bitch to make a school shooting a political issue, school shootings are a political issue.
The sick sons of bitches are those politicians who are prepared to stand by while school after school is the venue of a mass murder and politicians fail to do their damned job and tackle the issue.
The safety of the public is the number one role of the state to ensure, if politicians can't even take school shootings seriously enough to realise it is a political issue, then what is the point of them?
Whilst the latest massacre of children makes me angry and upset, its long long past being a political issue. Because you get what youy vote for, and someone upthread put it beautifully - people value their guns more than they value their children.
America can't be fixed because America wants to be broken. We may find it appalling but they don't - and its their society. The civilised world should be welcoming to sane Americans who want to flee Gilead, but I can't see how there is any political solution when the people voting are so emotionally backwards.
Back to @BartholomewRoberts, yes, Beto was a narcissistic c0ck for what he did. There is a time and place for everything and barging into that press conference and doing his stunt was not the time for it. It screamed "Look at me!!!!". The biggest winner from Beto's stunt was the Uvdale Police Department as he deflected attention from the many rightful questions about their actions during the shooting.
Oh cut the crap, the time is "never" and the place is "nowhere" according to Beto's critics.
"Now is not the time for politics" is code for "we want to brush this under the rug and act like it never happened.
If not now, then when and where is the time and the place?
I’m not saying the Edinburgh property market is mental but my old house which we sold for 300k three years ago just sold for 400k. 33% price increase in 3 years!
The English queuing up to buy property there for when the Scots become independent and rejoin the EU.
No @MrEd Beto is not a sick son of a bitch to make a school shooting a political issue, school shootings are a political issue.
The sick sons of bitches are those politicians who are prepared to stand by while school after school is the venue of a mass murder and politicians fail to do their damned job and tackle the issue.
The safety of the public is the number one role of the state to ensure, if politicians can't even take school shootings seriously enough to realise it is a political issue, then what is the point of them?
Whilst the latest massacre of children makes me angry and upset, its long long past being a political issue. Because you get what youy vote for, and someone upthread put it beautifully - people value their guns more than they value their children.
America can't be fixed because America wants to be broken. We may find it appalling but they don't - and its their society. The civilised world should be welcoming to sane Americans who want to flee Gilead, but I can't see how there is any political solution when the people voting are so emotionally backwards.
Back to @BartholomewRoberts, yes, Beto was a narcissistic c0ck for what he did. There is a time and place for everything and barging into that press conference and doing his stunt was not the time for it. It screamed "Look at me!!!!". The biggest winner from Beto's stunt was the Uvdale Police Department as he deflected attention from the many rightful questions about their actions during the shooting.
Course the Senate rushed through legislation immediately after the Supreme Court leak but a dozen hispanic kids get murdered all the politicians are allowed to do are offer mawkish thoughts and prayers.
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
Every bit of business while we are in the UK and we have C of E bishops imposed on us as part of the ruling system, without any attempt at all to provide for the three other nations. Even if you want to retain the primitive system of keeping the dominance of a minority sect.
Except that you have just conceded the opposite. That anything Scottish, on your logic, is no business of yours at all: above all, voting for parties to have independence referenda should now be respected without you poking your nose in.
Also: the percentage of RCs self-identifying has dropped massively in Scotland. So your justification is nonsense, as well as sounding like wanting to rerun the Gordon Riots.
No it isn't, the Church of England relates to England only, it is no concern of Scottish Nationalists like you. And don't you dare complain about the handful of Bishops in the Lords when Scottish Nationalists refuse to even take places in the Lords, however there are plenty of Scottish peers in the Upper House nonetheless. Indeed overall more than there are Bishops.
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
In terms of being the established church yes.
The Church of England is only the established church in England as has been the case since 1530 before which it was the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may be first amongst equals in the global Anglican communion but the only Anglican church the monarch is Supreme Governor of is the Church of England. So quite clearly the person who knows nothing on this is you
the Church of England relates to England only
It is the GLOBAL leader of the Anglican communion. The Archbishop of Cantebury leads not only the Church of England but is the head of the golbal communion of churches.
I'm surprised that no-one has bought up in this conversation the major point about the modern UK CoE.
Its function is to prevent the entrance of religion into political and daily life.
This is the church where one potential leader was er... black balled (ha) on the basis that he was excessively interested in the Big Sky Faerie.
More to prevent the Roman Catholic Church being the main non evangelical church in England again.
Whether the Church of England was established or not established the fastest growing Christian churches in England as globally would still be evangelical Pentecostal churches
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
Hey Dura, now I'm doing no mileage at all and it looks like that'll be the case for the foreseeable, I'm thinking about spending somewhere between £15k-£20k on a late model L322. Low mileage as I can get. Prepared to spend the money keeping it in good nick when something goes wrong, but intend to service it myself.
I know it's not the most sane thing to do in the world, but I'm thinking sod it, why not?
I'd be interested in your opinion...
The L322 is the one with two complete wiring looms - E65 BMW 7 Series and JLR's own loosely connected together with West Midlands hopes and dreams. They are very complex and have a hideous reputation for unreliability. The diesels are slower than Mark Francois running in Crocs, the petrol ones are thirstier than Therese Coffey and they all rust.
I personally wouldn't but don't let that stop you, if that's what you want. I've bought plenty of completely insane cars in my time. Just resign yourself to the fact that you'll be spending every night on eBay looking for bits and every weekend under it.
Haha cheers, I thought you'd say something like that! If I get one it'll be the 4.4 diesel with the 8 speed box. Will look at remapping it but I'm not too concerned about speed. It'll be a glorified dog car really, with room to take all the crap to the tip my missus somehow accumulates every few months.
There's a really good independent specialist a few miles away I suspect I would become very friendly with.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
He’d get a million quid JUST IN THE UK
However he is also widely known around the world - and he has an incredible story to tell, from Brexit to Covid, he has been central to two global stories (absolutely central in the first). Plus he writes well and he has lots of colourful anecdotes from a colourful life
He’d get a multi-million deal in the USA, and fat wads in Europe, etc
Conservatively, he can expect to earn £5-10m from his memoirs, and then a chunk more from the Netflix adaptation
You are right but I have never understood this really especially the speaker circuit stuff where ex-PMs charge a fortune. I used to hire speakers for conferences that I used to organise as part of my business and you could get cracking speakers for a fraction of the price of an ex-PM (still expensive mind, but not in the same league as an ex-PM). When I have raised this before I think someone said it was for the contacts. Admittedly none of the speakers I hired were of any use for that.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
He’d get a million quid JUST IN THE UK
However he is also widely known around the world - and he has an incredible story to tell, from Brexit to Covid, he has been central to two global stories (absolutely central in the first). Plus he writes well and he has lots of colourful anecdotes from a colourful life
He’d get a multi-million deal in the USA, and fat wads in Europe, etc
Conservatively, he can expect to earn £5-10m from his memoirs, and then a chunk more from the Netflix adaptation
I read his Churchill Factor. It was a pile of shit. The worst political biography anyone has ever written I would think. It was lazy, poorly constructed and had no new insight or perspective, other than what appeared to be a hasty and poor attempt to retrospectively make the populist title applicable, no doubt after he had semi-completed his rehash of other peoples' research. The most annoying thing about it was that I was dumb enough to buy it.
Surely, if the Conservatives had lost enough seats to only be 'able' to form a Minority Government, it's quite likely that the current PM would have lost his own.
The Portillo moment of all Portillo moments!
And yes I know no sitting PM has ever lost their set in UK, but there's always a first time!
My guess remains that Boris will retire before the next election, especially if (as now) he looks like losing. That said, I am less certain than I used to be, but if Boris does want to get rich enough to afford his own wallpaper, he cannot leave it too late.
Why? He could get a million quid book advance today if that's what he wanted. According to my wife's friend who is something in publishing but drives an Evoque so there is a question mark over her mental capacity.
He’d get a million quid JUST IN THE UK
However he is also widely known around the world - and he has an incredible story to tell, from Brexit to Covid, he has been central to two global stories (absolutely central in the first). Plus he writes well and he has lots of colourful anecdotes from a colourful life
He’d get a multi-million deal in the USA, and fat wads in Europe, etc
Conservatively, he can expect to earn £5-10m from his memoirs, and then a chunk more from the Netflix adaptation
I read his Churchill Factor. It was a pile of shit. The worst political biography anyone has ever written I would think. It was lazy, poorly constructed and had no new insight or perspective, other than what appeared to be a hasty and poor attempt to retrospectively make the populist title applicable, no doubt after he had semi-completed his rehash of other peoples' research. The most annoying thing about it was that I was dumb enough to buy it.
As would have been a lot of people and even more after being PM, so @Leon is right.
I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:
1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.
2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.
3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.
4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.
I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.
He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult
I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem
Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.
If he shortens a bit more I'll be laying him for next PM.
Are there any Tugendhat backers around on pb? Can anyone explain his odds? I would have him a similar chance to someone like Ellwood - close to zero per cent and behind at least ten from the cabinet.
The problem is that everyone "likely to win" is really no more likely to win *before a campaign is declared* than the outsiders. And the numbers are all so close that there's very little trading value. What was the likelihood of David Cameron winning, looking back at 2004? Close to zero, until after his conference speech.
Disagree strongly with half of that, there is huge margin on these markets, although do agree that generally you should be looking to lay the shorter price runners and back some plausible outsiders. Today that would be backing the likes of Patel, Barclay, Baker, Coffey, Shapps and laying the Hat.
Ah, OK - I was under the impression there was insufficient movement to make it worthwhile, but I am learning every day [I've only been actually putting my money where my mouth is this year, and my profits are small but positive, though I am probably too conservative to improve that significantly!]
Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.
Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.
I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was). The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.
That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.
If your house consistently earns more for you than your job, then don't be surprised when the 50+ buy more houses and quit their jobs.
A housing market crash would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, as well as provide some intergenerational fairness.
The problem is that it would also negatively impact labour mobility, as people can't move to new areas if they are stuck with negative equity.
You definitely don’t want a crash, but a 10% correction in money terms this year, and 5% per year after that would leave few real issues, so long as interest rates don’t end up at 10%.
Comments
Simply re-allocate the £300 for voting Tory to the 8 million poorest households on means tested benefits who are already identified in the scheme or restore the £20 UC uplift.
And as for the emotional bit there are also parents starving themselves to illness so they can provide some food for their kids.
And I think open carry is the easier permit to get in the US
I also say the same about Starmer.
Those who vote for this nonsense really need to start valuing competence and credibility ahead of ideology.
I always said that I didn't think membership of the EU wasn't the be-all and end-all of Britain's economic destiny. That what mattered more was how well the country was run. Being out of the EU and having very poor management of the country is probably the worst combination though.
His other problem with retirement is the usual despot one that everybody hates him and he needs to retain his superpowers to ward them off. He daren't go up against the Privileges Committee as former PM boris Johnson.
Reviews are very good: What Car? Top Gear and others:
https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/land-rover/range-rover-evoque-0
The UK government is quite entitled to refuse an indyref2 and this one will continue to do so, Holyrood is just a creation of Westminster for Scottish domestic policies only it is still Westminster that has the final say on the Union. Given No still leads 55% to 45% there is zero change from 2014 anyway.
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1529380818027745282?s=20&t=gCJ1XZdxGePn-dhyU6Plsg
There are still 14% of Scots Roman Catholics in Scotland, still significantly more than in England
https://www.statista.com/statistics/367848/scotland-religious-beliefs-population/
Which is why the civilised ones should move to civilised countries.
"I also think what Boris has done is unacceptable but remoaner blah blah traitor waffle waffle you just hate Boris because he beat you yadda yadda."
It's extremely weird, and as such I'm going to adopt the same pattern of behaviour. From now on, every time I hear criticism of Jimmy Savile, I'm going to agree that what he did was terrible but also attack the person attacking him by claiming they're just jealous. Jealous, because their man Tony Blackburn didn't get as much of a look in on TOTP as they would have liked.
The mother church leading the worldwide Anglian Communion only relates to England?
I know you claim to be all holier-than-thou and all that, its just that you keep demonstrating that you know literally nothing about what you preach...
The Church of England is only the established church in England as has been the case since 1530 before which it was the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may be first amongst equals in the global Anglican communion but the only Anglican church the monarch is Supreme Governor of is the Church of England. So quite clearly the person who knows nothing on this is you
But equally neither Fortnum and Masons (overpriced and the 2 suppliers I know who sell to Fortnum and Masons also sell to Lewis and Cooper in Northallerton (so go their for hampers) and I've always said you only like Waitrose if you haven't seen or got a Booths.
JLR want everything on the cheap.
While Labour’s formed minority admins in councils like @Edinburgh_CC with Conservative help, the only place they’ve actually broken @AnasSarwar pledge of no coalitions with Tories/SNP is @dgcouncil with … the SNP
https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1530097068102000641
The SNP, in a last minute move to save their own skins, tried to do their own deal with the Tories in Edinburgh.
Their move was rejected and now they have the brass neck to whinge about Labour doing their own deal with the Conservatives.
Hypocritical losers.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1530100140438081543
But I dunno. for a lot of people none of that matters and for another lot there's so much to hate there that it all sort of cancels out, and he slips through the middle. I don't see how he can not relinquish french citizenship (he is dual atm), he can always get it back again later.
I know it's not the most sane thing to do in the world, but I'm thinking sod it, why not?
I'd be interested in your opinion...
LAB: 40% (+1)
CON: 33% (-2)
LDM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 6% (=)
SNP: 4% (=)
Via @techneUK, 25-26 May.
Changes w/ 18-19 May.
Similar pattern post Gray but mainly pre CoL giveaway
33% price increase in 3 years!
Pocket pistols were very popular - zillions made and many still around.
The impression that all flintlocks were huge has been helped by Hollywood. They tend to use horse pistols as generic pistols for "period" films. Much as they equip modern heroes & villains, very often, with huge modern pistols.
Not sure what this really has to do with the modern American fascinations with arming bears, or whatever...
It is the GLOBAL leader of the Anglican communion. The Archbishop of Cantebury leads not only the Church of England but is the head of the golbal communion of churches.
Relates to England only? Bullshit. Laughable bullshit. https://www.anglicancommunion.org/
However he is also widely known around the world - and he has an incredible story to tell, from Brexit to Covid, he has been central to two global stories (absolutely central in the first). Plus he writes well and he has lots of colourful anecdotes from a colourful life
He’d get a multi-million deal in the USA, and fat wads in Europe, etc
Conservatively, he can expect to earn £5-10m from his memoirs, and then a chunk more from the Netflix adaptation
The Archbishop of Canterbury is symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion only, he does not exercise any authority outside the Church of England
Debauchery in Downing Stret is a symptom not a cause.
Its function is to prevent the entrance of religion into political and daily life.
This is the church where one potential leader was er... black balled (ha) on the basis that he was excessively interested in the Big Sky Faerie.
I personally wouldn't but don't let that stop you, if that's what you want. I've bought plenty of completely insane cars in my time. Just resign yourself to the fact that you'll be spending every night on eBay looking for bits and every weekend under it.
I'll be one of them.
The story you mention is in there, along with many less than savoury episodes, but I wouldn't trust Johnson to tell it. What you would get is a purple mess of self-aggrandising prose. He'd make a fascinating subject for a Robert Caro type.
All that said, you're right that it would be very lucrative for him, lucre being the apposite term.
So don't make stupid comments yourself
"Now is not the time for politics" is code for "we want to brush this under the rug and act like it never happened.
If not now, then when and where is the time and the place?
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1529380818027745282?s=20&t=gCJ1XZdxGePn-dhyU6Plsg
(But I did also pop into Waitrose and used my £8 off voucher if I spent £40.
Can I at least be a nominal Tory?
Whether the Church of England was established or not established the fastest growing Christian churches in England as globally would still be evangelical Pentecostal churches
There's a really good independent specialist a few miles away I suspect I would become very friendly with.
If you block the EGR will it still pass an MOT?
NEW THREAD