Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A 75/1 and 80/1 tip for next PM – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 19 in General
A 75/1 and 80/1 tip for next PM – politicalbetting.com

?Don't tell Brenda from Bristol?Oct 27 snap gen election floated by @BorisJohnson alliesWhy??'Wedge week' – NIProtocol, Rwanda, rail row – seen as success??Avoids Privileges Cttee, Covid Inquiry, 1922 confidence vote#WaughOnPolitics in yr inboxhttps://t.co/9TpRQPAPQ3

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 19
    Good morning to you all and thank you to @TheScreamingEagles for the thread.

    I have bets over 100/1 on three Labour females for next PM (Nandy, Reeves, and Cooper). Why? Because Labour will choose a female as their next leader.

    Wes Streeting's tweets are vile and they rule him out.

    We're going for a woman. Bet accordingly.

    p.s. incidentally, it's not impossible that this scenario still works if Boris clings on beyond this autumn, into next year or even 2024. I'm presuming that may be why one of the betting companies is offering me a cash out. They must be jittery.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 522
    Has OGH endorsed these long-shots ? .. :smile:
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    Reading the full article and Streeting and Nandy's names appear because they are ambitious.

    If you're going down this line then back Rachel Reeves too. And I think my Yvette Cooper punt was worth it in a number of short-term scenarios.

    I haven't bothered to bet on Streeting. He won't be elected leader of the Labour Party.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871
    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    Agreed.

    I think stirring the election idea is just another of his malicious tactics to try and get the flakey tory MPs into line. It's a desperate threat from an increasingly desperate man.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 19
    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    edited June 19
    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    If labour have another leadership election, we are back again to the problem of the process of selection. It largely goes down to where the membership are at. 2015 isn't all that long ago.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Yes.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,561
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: just putting together the pre-race tosh. If anyone actually read the pre-qualifying thingummyjig and followed the not-a-tip on Alonso then congrats. No idea what the odds were.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    FWIW, I think Streeting's tweets are even more damaging than Rayner's "scum" comments.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Apple store workers vote to form first US union

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61855301

    Leaving aside the fact it is Apple (boo, hiss), I do wonder why some large and immensely rich American companies are so against unions and unionisation. Whether Apple, Tesla, Amazon, Google etc are all rather anti-union.

    MS's recent position change is rather weak but interesting. They've made a neutrality agreement with the CWA union:
    https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2022/06/02/employee-organizing-engagement-labor-economy/

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Where did these October election rumours start? The next year is going to be horrendous everywhere, no government with the choice is going to the people under those circumstances. By October, people will be switching their heating on and seeing eye-watering bills, and unemployment could be ticking up as the economy falters.

    May 2024 will be the penciled-in date, with perhaps late September ‘24 as the contingency, preceded by a tax-cutting budget.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    Sandpit said:

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Where did these October election rumours start?
    Fidgety pb posters I think.
    Sandpit said:

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.


    May 2024 will be the penciled-in date, with perhaps late September ‘24 as the contingency, preceded by a tax-cutting budget.
    Agreed
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    rcs1000 said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    FWIW, I think Streeting's tweets are even more damaging than Rayner's "scum" comments.
    So do I.

    You don't come back from those sorts of tweets.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,561
    Betting Post

    F1: backed Sainz each way for the win at 6.

    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/06/canada-pre-race-2022.html

    He should finish 2nd. Assuming his car doesn't explode.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Apple store workers vote to form first US union

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61855301

    Leaving aside the fact it is Apple (boo, hiss), I do wonder why some large and immensely rich American companies are so against unions and unionisation. Whether Apple, Tesla, Amazon, Google etc are all rather anti-union.

    MS's recent position change is rather weak but interesting. They've made a neutrality agreement with the CWA union:
    https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2022/06/02/employee-organizing-engagement-labor-economy/

    Capitalists not wanting their workers to have workplace representation?

    It's impossible to come up with a reason isn't it?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 19

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. .
    I rejoined the Labour Party after a long absence when Starmer showed he was serious about booting out the anti-Semites. I liked the idea that it gives me voting rights.

    However, I'm not really a typical Labourite. I've yet to attend a single meeting and not sure I ever will! I vote LibDem tactically and would always support the latter if I thought they had a better chance. I've voted Green sometimes too. And I will continue to be critical of Labour politicians and policies if I think they deserve it. I also think there are some decent Conservatives around, many of whom are as appalled by Johnson as me, as witnessed on politicalbetting.com
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    No, I'm a mere punter, in both senses, and not a party man on any side.

    But if you want to compare Streeting to Rayner, do Rayner's scum comments matter? Not in any high-minded moral sense but in terms of making a palpable difference. What might end, or at least set back, Angela Rayner's career, and stop her achieving the leadership, is Starmer's gamble on the Durham constabulary, rather than any ill-considered anti-Tory invective.

    That is the point. I am not defending Streeting or Rayner. Until a couple of years back, I would have agreed with you. Losing money opposing Boris has changed my mind. Things that should matter, often don't. So far, after only a day so things might yet escalate, this is one of those.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,474
    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    FWIW, I think Streeting's tweets are even more damaging than Rayner's "scum" comments.
    So do I.

    You don't come back from those sorts of tweets.
    TBF it won't be clear exactly how seriously damaging the tweets are until Big G mounts the tall steed and demands peformatively formal condemnation of them from all present.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    I think @CorrectHorseBattery is a Labour member by the sounds of things? Probably far more representative of one than me.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    edited June 19

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Punters agree with you, as do I. A 2022 GE would be madness, but then there is the non insignificant risk that Boris Johnson is actually mentally unstable. Long covid? All the years of private and public deceit and cheating? Copious mendacity (what was the true story again?) Open contempt for his person? It must be extremely wearing on a man’s psyche. Errors of judgment become the norm.

    A strong parliamentary Conservative Party could counter this, but this is the most spineless group of Tory MPs in living memory.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,489
    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 19
    I think there's a difference between calling someone scum and writing in public that you'd like to throw someone under a train or torture someone's cat. Apparently he has deleted 4708 tweets.

    Nevertheless, Angela Rayner did demonstrate with that comment that she's not really the right material for PM either.

    I'm obvs slightly biased about the female leadership issue but I do think Labour will choose a female. It has surfaced as an 'issue' for the party a few too many times in recent years and it's a definite Achilles heel that lays them wide open to criticism from every other party, with some justification.

    Nandy, Reeves, Cooper seem to be the obvious choices and I have bets on all three.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    I haven't looked into the detail of Streetings tweets, but as a general rule don't clutch my pearls over things said years ago on social media. If we are too persecutory over that then we will have a pisspoor set of anodyne politicians to choose amongst. We have to adapt to the modern world.

    I am not want to call for people to resign or be sacked either. I would rather they be voted out.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,049

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    Streeting's biggest handicap is that he has whizzed up the greasy pole remarkably quickly and hasn't yet fully matured away from the shouty student politician he's always been. If he were to become next leader his career could easily follow the same trajectory as Hague's. Streeting's standing out currently is more of a comment on how little competition for talent there is right now.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871
    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Heathener said:

    I think there's a difference between calling someone scum and writing in public that you'd like to throw someone under a train or torture someone's cat.

    Nevertheless, Angela Rayner did demonstrate with that comment that she's not really the right material for PM either.

    I'm obvs slightly biased about the female leadership issue but I do think Labour will choose a female. It has surfaced as an 'issue' for the party a few too many times in recent years and it's a definite Achilles heel that lays them wide open to criticism from every other party, with some justification.

    Nandy, Reeves, Cooper seem to be the obvious choices and I have bets on all three.

    I disagree over Rayner and am a fan. Politicians should not be expected to behave like debutantes.

    I agree though that the next Labour leader is very likely to be a woman. I think Reeves would get the Starmer endorsement.

    I wonder if Starmers leaked thoughts suggest that he is planning to step down, even if no FPN. His work is done and I think he recognises that he is a drag on the party.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    Well done! I love it. I've managed to stack up Silver Membership which gives the same priority passage and lounge access.

    You'll get that famous middle seat space on board too for putting your champagne.

    Enjoy!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,173
    Good morning one and all. Massive thunderclap last night right overhead!

    Happy Father's Day to all fellow paternal parents!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    I haven't looked into the detail of Streetings tweets, but as a general rule don't clutch my pearls over things said years ago on social media. If we are too persecutory over that then we will have a pisspoor set of anodyne politicians to choose amongst. We have to adapt to the modern world.

    I am not want to call for people to resign or be sacked either. I would rather they be voted out.
    I feel a smidgen of sympathy for Wes Streeting. Yes, the tweets were silly but no-one knew the rules or the implications when social media first took off 10-15 years ago.

    Anyone tweeting at the time should be cut a little bit of slack.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,173

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    I haven't looked into the detail of Streetings tweets, but as a general rule don't clutch my pearls over things said years ago on social media. If we are too persecutory over that then we will have a pisspoor set of anodyne politicians to choose amongst. We have to adapt to the modern world.

    I am not want to call for people to resign or be sacked either. I would rather they be voted out.
    I feel a smidgen of sympathy for Wes Streeting. Yes, the tweets were silly but no-one knew the rules or the implications when social media first took off 10-15 years ago.

    Anyone tweeting at the time should be cut a little bit of slack.
    Least said, soonest mended. Applies to tweets as well doesn't it!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,474
    edited June 19
    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    (Snip)
    I think that's rubbish - and politically biased rubbish, too. As ever with such things, you need to imagine if you would take the same view if it was an opponent who had said it - would you be quite as forgiving?

    The problem with Rayner's comments are not just that she made them, but that she doubled down on them. Such comments were the street language of her working-class roots, and that sort of thing.

    Her apology was late and forced. I see zero indication she has actually changed her views, even if she is not expressing them. For instance, being seen to work with scum Conservative MPs on non-political matters of mutual interest might be a great start. And she might actually learn that Conservatives are people too...

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    I haven't looked into the detail of Streetings tweets, but as a general rule don't clutch my pearls over things said years ago on social media. If we are too persecutory over that then we will have a pisspoor set of anodyne politicians to choose amongst. We have to adapt to the modern world.

    I am not want to call for people to resign or be sacked either. I would rather they be voted out.
    Well, that really would be a break with current practice given this generation of political titans.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,318

    Betting Post

    F1: backed Sainz each way for the win at 6.

    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/06/canada-pre-race-2022.html

    He should finish 2nd. Assuming his car doesn't explode.

    A far from negligible risk.....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027
    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I’d be interested in seeing how the Barnet formula works out, if the official population of Scotland drops by half a million at the Census.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Well done you.

    I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    (Snip)
    I think that's rubbish - and politically biased rubbish, too. As ever with such things, you need to imagine if you would take the same view if it was an opponent who had said it - would you be quite as forgiving?

    The problem with Rayner's comments are not just that she made them, but that she doubled down on them. Such comments were the street language of her working-class roots, and that sort of thing.

    Her apology was late and forced. I see zero indication she has actually changed her views, even if she is not expressing them. For instance, being seen to work with scum Conservative MPs on non-political matters of mutual interest might be a great start. And she might actually learn that Conservatives are people too...

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
    Yes, I am more forgiving than you clearly.

    I don't bang on about similar gaffes by Conservative or Brexity people either, if you haven't noticed. I try to focus on current behaviour and remarks. It isn't party political to move on from the past, just part of my philosophy of life.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,615

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    You pour your own champagne? What are butler's for?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    I haven't looked into the detail of Streetings tweets, but as a general rule don't clutch my pearls over things said years ago on social media. If we are too persecutory over that then we will have a pisspoor set of anodyne politicians to choose amongst. We have to adapt to the modern world.

    I am not want to call for people to resign or be sacked either. I would rather they be voted out.
    I feel a smidgen of sympathy for Wes Streeting. Yes, the tweets were silly but no-one knew the rules or the implications when social media first took off 10-15 years ago.

    Anyone tweeting at the time should be cut a little bit of slack.
    Anyone standing for public office, who still has undeleted Tweets from a decade ago, is the epitome of David Cameron’s famous 2009 comment about what might be made by too many Tweets.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,318
    Just wondering how this thread conflicts with the previous one? If he goes for a snap election, there is a less than 73% chance he stays PM. There's a less than 735 chance he holds his seat. There'd be plenty of those who supported him in the recent VONC not ready to give up the day job until 2024. You could have another vote (following a 22 rule change) by teatime...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I’d be interested in seeing how the Barnet formula works out, if the official population of Scotland drops by half a million at the Census.
    They'll fine everybody a grand just to make up the income?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 8,376

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    The trouble with flying business class is that you realise the airlines do actually know how to provide a pleasant service, they just choose not to most of the time. Still, it is ultimately our fault for always choosing the cheapest service on offer, I suppose. Ryanair only exists because that is what people want. Enjoy your free champagne and don't get used to it!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Perhaps that's what the latest police pursuit vehicle was doing, but you misunderstood and thought they were trying to catch you for doing 275 mph?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    I haven't looked into the detail of Streetings tweets, but as a general rule don't clutch my pearls over things said years ago on social media. If we are too persecutory over that then we will have a pisspoor set of anodyne politicians to choose amongst. We have to adapt to the modern world.

    I am not want to call for people to resign or be sacked either. I would rather they be voted out.
    Well, that really would be a break with current practice given this generation of political titans.
    Sometimes people rise to the occasion (Zelensky being an obvious contemporary example) and sometimes they don't (VP Harris for example).

    There have always been plenty of lightweights and timeservers in politics, it is only in retrospect that we see them as heavyweights.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    (Snip)
    I think that's rubbish - and politically biased rubbish, too. As ever with such things, you need to imagine if you would take the same view if it was an opponent who had said it - would you be quite as forgiving?

    The problem with Rayner's comments are not just that she made them, but that she doubled down on them. Such comments were the street language of her working-class roots, and that sort of thing.

    Her apology was late and forced. I see zero indication she has actually changed her views, even if she is not expressing them. For instance, being seen to work with scum Conservative MPs on non-political matters of mutual interest might be a great start. And she might actually learn that Conservatives are people too...

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
    Yes, I am more forgiving than you clearly.

    I don't bang on about similar gaffes by Conservative or Brexity people either, if you haven't noticed. I try to focus on current behaviour and remarks. It isn't party political to move on from the past, just part of my philosophy of life.
    LOL. Which was why you were talking about Thatcher just yesterday:

    "My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it. destruction of manufacturing just yesterday."

    Which was not only factually wrong, but hardly focussing on current behaviour or forgiveness...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871
    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    They probably filled it out for you.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    The trouble with flying business class is that you realise the airlines do actually know how to provide a pleasant service, they just choose not to most of the time. Still, it is ultimately our fault for always choosing the cheapest service on offer, I suppose. Ryanair only exists because that is what people want. Enjoy your free champagne and don't get used to it!
    Thank you. The upgrade offer was £99 per head, so worth it for enhanced 1.5 hour pre-flight experience and 3.5 hour flight. So £20 per hour for the extra.

    Normally, it's 2-3 times the price of economy (maybe £1,050 as per £300 economy?) so not worth it.

    As with my betting I try and do a value calculation!
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Punters agree with you, as do I. A 2022 GE would be madness, but then there is the non insignificant risk that Boris Johnson is actually mentally unstable. Long covid? All the years of private and public deceit and cheating? Copious mendacity (what was the true story again?) Open contempt for his person? It must be extremely wearing on a man’s psyche. Errors of judgment become the norm.

    A strong parliamentary Conservative Party could counter this, but this is the most spineless group of Tory MPs in living memory.
    The rational-crazy reason for an October election is in order to lose it.

    Think of the Johnson government as the crew in a heist movie. We've now reached the stage where they are about to do a runner for the airport, fake passports in hand, while the police chase them.

    Crazy in many ways, and harsh justice for the mugs in the Conservative Party who fell for him. But hey ho. And Johnson does have form for running away when things go sour.

    Under the new rules, are there any checks on a PM who goes mad and decides "I want a General Election and I want it now?"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    The airlines are being pretty liberal with the last-minute upgrade offers at the moment.

    Always, always take them if offered. It’s not just the slightly bigger seat, it’s the whole experience of the trip.

    I still mention to my dear Mum that she once turned down a £100 business class upgrade on Emirates, at the check-in desk, for a seven-hour flight out to the sandpit. It’s the best £100 she’d ever have spent.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,474
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Perhaps that's what the latest police pursuit vehicle was doing, but you misunderstood and thought they were trying to catch you for doing 275 mph?
    The last BBC/Capita guy said he was going to come back with a warrant and the Old Bill, etc. I said, well fucking do it then. Nothing ever happened. The licence fee enforcement system entirely relies on people who are gullible or vulnerable enought to admit it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871
    Heathener said:

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    Well done! I love it. I've managed to stack up Silver Membership which gives the same priority passage and lounge access.

    You'll get that famous middle seat space on board too for putting your champagne.

    Enjoy!
    Thank you. A true champagne socialist 😉
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,974
    Heathener said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Well done you.

    I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
    Do you watch BBC output?
    I’m not a fan of the licence fee. It’s time is long gone in the era of streaming. I find people’s objections to the census disappointing. One if it’s uses is planning of services. How many gps does an area need? Schools? Etc. Why object to that?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,173
    edited June 19
    Sandpit said:

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    The airlines are being pretty liberal with the last-minute upgrade offers at the moment.

    Always, always take them if offered. It’s not just the slightly bigger seat, it’s the whole experience of the trip.

    I still mention to my dear Mum that she once turned down a £100 business class upgrade on Emirates, at the check-in desk, for a seven-hour flight out to the sandpit. It’s the best £100 she’d ever have spent.
    If we ever fly again I would do exactly that if offered such an upgrade; take it!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    (Snip)
    I think that's rubbish - and politically biased rubbish, too. As ever with such things, you need to imagine if you would take the same view if it was an opponent who had said it - would you be quite as forgiving?

    The problem with Rayner's comments are not just that she made them, but that she doubled down on them. Such comments were the street language of her working-class roots, and that sort of thing.

    Her apology was late and forced. I see zero indication she has actually changed her views, even if she is not expressing them. For instance, being seen to work with scum Conservative MPs on non-political matters of mutual interest might be a great start. And she might actually learn that Conservatives are people too...

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
    Yes, I am more forgiving than you clearly.

    I don't bang on about similar gaffes by Conservative or Brexity people either, if you haven't noticed. I try to focus on current behaviour and remarks. It isn't party political to move on from the past, just part of my philosophy of life.
    LOL. Which was why you were talking about Thatcher just yesterday:

    "My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it. destruction of manufacturing just yesterday."

    Which was not only factually wrong, but hardly focussing on current behaviour or forgiveness...
    I think that a fair assessment of her monetarist policies to control inflation in the early Eighties. It was a separate policy to her anti-union policies. I was around at the time and she seemed unconcerned at the human cost.

    But whatever my thoughts on political history, that is different to pillorying a current politician or public figure for something said or done in the past. The key being current figure.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    AIUI there were 3 tweets:

    - winding up Boris about not showing up to meet northern MPs when he was actually in Kyiv. Whatever.
    - Coming out in support of the RMT strikes. I think he’s wrong, and Starmer slapped him down for tactical reasons. But it’s a valid political position
    - Saying he wanted to throw a journalist under a train. Foolish & disturbing imagery but no one really thinks he meant it literally. He should be more careful in future about his choice of words but the worst you can say is it suggests a lack of maturity/judgement

    And, for the record, I am not a Labourite
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    FWIW, I think Streeting's tweets are even more damaging than Rayner's "scum" comments.
    So do I.

    You don't come back from those sorts of tweets.
    I’m looking forward to FUDHY’s attempt to be an MP.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Heathener said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Well done you.

    I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
    Do you watch BBC output?
    I’m not a fan of the licence fee. It’s time is long gone in the era of streaming. I find people’s objections to the census disappointing. One if it’s uses is planning of services. How many gps does an area need? Schools? Etc. Why object to that?
    I'm a fan of the BBC. I see the licence fee as money well spent for me in terms of entertainment and information. But I am going to be in a shrinking majority that will become a minority, perhaps within a few years.

    This means the BBC's funding model is becoming increasingly out of place in a changed world.

    Sadly, no government has decided to really address this, and it will eventually lead to the BBC's demise.

    I think the case for Channel 4's privatisation has not been made. But give the fury being shown over that, can you imagine what a major change to the BBC's funding model would produce? Which is why no government will do anything other than tinker around the edges.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,044
    Rayners tweets were worse simply as she was pandering to her base and anti Tories on social media.

    Her initial doubling down and insincere apology didn’t help and her gushing words of affection for the two Tory MPs who died just showed her hypocrisy or her initial comments about Tory scum were not heartfelt.

    Streetings tweets are pretty poor as well.

    Both will survive them. They are part of the labour establishment. Labour won’t want to lose either.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    I haven't looked into the detail of Streetings tweets, but as a general rule don't clutch my pearls over things said years ago on social media. If we are too persecutory over that then we will have a pisspoor set of anodyne politicians to choose amongst. We have to adapt to the modern world.

    I am not want to call for people to resign or be sacked either. I would rather they be voted out.
    I think that ship has sailed, my friend
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Punters agree with you, as do I. A 2022 GE would be madness, but then there is the non insignificant risk that Boris Johnson is actually mentally unstable. Long covid? All the years of private and public deceit and cheating? Copious mendacity (what was the true story again?) Open contempt for his person? It must be extremely wearing on a man’s psyche. Errors of judgment become the norm.

    A strong parliamentary Conservative Party could counter this, but this is the most spineless group of Tory MPs in living memory.
    The rational-crazy reason for an October election is in order to lose it.

    Think of the Johnson government as the crew in a heist movie. We've now reached the stage where they are about to do a runner for the airport, fake passports in hand, while the police chase them.

    Crazy in many ways, and harsh justice for the mugs in the Conservative Party who fell for him. But hey ho. And Johnson does have form for running away when things go sour.

    Under the new rules, are there any checks on a PM who goes mad and decides "I want a General Election and I want it now?"
    That’s “rational-crazy” reasoning for madman Johnson, but is the Conservative Party mad too? Perhaps. Brexit seems to have flipped their lids.

    No sane party *wants* to be in opposition.
    There is no such thing as “a good election to lose”.
    Yes, defeats must be accepted and processed, but they should never be wilfully encouraged.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Do you use any services that require you to have a TV licence?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    The trouble with flying business class is that you realise the airlines do actually know how to provide a pleasant service, they just choose not to most of the time. Still, it is ultimately our fault for always choosing the cheapest service on offer, I suppose. Ryanair only exists because that is what people want. Enjoy your free champagne and don't get used to it!
    Yes, the poor customer experience is the corollary of cheap flying, and it is often ridiculously cheap. I can fly to pretty much anywhere in the continent for the price of a rail journey 100 miles Leicester to London.

    That sort of pricing doesn't leave much room for customer service, whether comfort and convenience on the day, or sorting out problems like the recent airport chaos.

    Ultimately you get what you pay for, and people only want to pay for the basics.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,044

    Heathener said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Well done you.

    I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
    Do you watch BBC output?
    I’m not a fan of the licence fee. It’s time is long gone in the era of streaming. I find people’s objections to the census disappointing. One if it’s uses is planning of services. How many gps does an area need? Schools? Etc. Why object to that?
    I'm a fan of the BBC. I see the licence fee as money well spent for me in terms of entertainment and information. But I am going to be in a shrinking majority that will become a minority, perhaps within a few years.

    This means the BBC's funding model is becoming increasingly out of place in a changed world.

    Sadly, no government has decided to really address this, and it will eventually lead to the BBC's demise.

    I think the case for Channel 4's privatisation has not been made. But give the fury being shown over that, can you imagine what a major change to the BBC's funding model would produce? Which is why no government will do anything other than tinker around the edges.
    Where’s the fury about channel 4 coming from ? Not the general public but those in the media and creative arts.

    Why should channel 4 be state owned. Privatise it.

    As for the BBC funding the license fee is going. It is what replaces it that is the issue. There is affection for the BBC, but this has been in decline over time, but the license fee is unpopular. It needs to go and not be replaced by any form of taxation.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,636

    Heathener said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Well done you.

    I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
    Why wouldn't you complete the census? It doesn't take long, it allows the government to provide the correct amount of funding for services in your area, and in a hundred years it will be a genealogical resource for your ancestors. It really is the duty of everyone to fill it in, I am surprised that responsible people wouldn't do it.
    Boycotting the census is opting out of being considered, in policy and research, because it makes you invisible.

    Case in point, I know there was a move among transgender people to boycott the census or at least the question about being transgender because it was considered to be worded in the wrong way (something like has your gender changed - many felt their gender had not changed, just the gender they'd always felt didn't match birth sex). Lord knows why that wasn't piloted and picked up. Transgender people are likely to be underreported in the census as a result and funding for services will reflect the official population.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    Which lounge are you in?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Do you use any services that require you to have a TV licence?
    Dixon of Dock Green is on your case.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,007
    Thanks to whoever posted the Monkhouse link. Wonderful start to Father’s Day watching that in bed with a cuppa. Still waiting for the chambermaid to walk in…
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    I'm flying Club Europe for the first time today - got a last minute special offer upgrade.

    My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.

    Flying as it used to be, and should be.

    Which lounge are you in?
    No snogging in the back row boys.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,236
    My last flight was to Germany with Lufthansa, can't remember which class it was but the flight out included the lounge which as Casino Royale points out makes the whole flying experience much nicer.
    Worse flying experience was the one where I'm fairly certain the shoulders of my skeleton wouldn't have fitted in the wretchedly small chair.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,474

    Heathener said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Well done you.

    I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
    Do you watch BBC output?
    All the time. I am low key in love with latest iteration of Sam Mitchell on Eastenders.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Btw, you can get 100/1 on Lisa Nandy at Corals and Ladbrokes

    The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.

    Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.

    Maybe but lots of things that should be true, aren't. A quick news search for Streeting shows the tweets have made barely a ripple, being mentioned as asides by hostile newspapers running stories about his other supposed gaffes, for instance:-
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update

    And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
    If you don't like what Boris has said about journalists in the past (and rightly so), then you should not excuse Streeting's comments.

    Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.

    But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
    Au contraire, the only Labourite on here, if @Heathener is that, has said the tweets will be fatal to Streeting's chances. But after losing lots of money because Boris was so blatantly unsuitable to be leader, I am sceptical this will make a difference. More problematic for Streeting might be a zeitgeist that it is time for a woman but you'd need to ask someone inside the party about that.
    But it's like Rayner's 'scum' comments. Some on here said it was a brilliant apology, when in fact it was a forced one, made a month after the original comments, after she had doubled down on them, and only made after an MP was murdered.

    I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ... ;)
    Possibly me, but then I am the forgiving sort.

    To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.

    (Snip)
    I think that's rubbish - and politically biased rubbish, too. As ever with such things, you need to imagine if you would take the same view if it was an opponent who had said it - would you be quite as forgiving?

    The problem with Rayner's comments are not just that she made them, but that she doubled down on them. Such comments were the street language of her working-class roots, and that sort of thing.

    Her apology was late and forced. I see zero indication she has actually changed her views, even if she is not expressing them. For instance, being seen to work with scum Conservative MPs on non-political matters of mutual interest might be a great start. And she might actually learn that Conservatives are people too...

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
    Yes, I am more forgiving than you clearly.

    I don't bang on about similar gaffes by Conservative or Brexity people either, if you haven't noticed. I try to focus on current behaviour and remarks. It isn't party political to move on from the past, just part of my philosophy of life.
    LOL. Which was why you were talking about Thatcher just yesterday:

    "My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it. destruction of manufacturing just yesterday."

    Which was not only factually wrong, but hardly focussing on current behaviour or forgiveness...
    I think that a fair assessment of her monetarist policies to control inflation in the early Eighties. It was a separate policy to her anti-union policies. I was around at the time and she seemed unconcerned at the human cost.

    But whatever my thoughts on political history, that is different to pillorying a current politician or public figure for something said or done in the past. The key being current figure.
    IMV it's a really simplistic and poor assessment of the state of manufacturing in the 1970s and 1980s, and an unthinking one.

    I'd also argue it's easier to forgive the 'sins' and mistakes of someone long departed, than it is of people who still have power and influence.

    Why are comments made by 'current figures' more worthy of forgiveness? Surely forgiveness too freely given can have much more effect on figures who are still around?

    You appear to want to 'move on from the past' when people you quite like are criticised. But are perfectly willing to bring up events of forty years ago in a very unforgiving manner when they involve people you do not like.

    Odd that.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,476
    From being a former fan of the BBC and generally its principle ,I think it is going downhill fast especially its website that resembles Hello Magazine more each week.

    Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Punters agree with you, as do I. A 2022 GE would be madness, but then there is the non insignificant risk that Boris Johnson is actually mentally unstable. Long covid? All the years of private and public deceit and cheating? Copious mendacity (what was the true story again?) Open contempt for his person? It must be extremely wearing on a man’s psyche. Errors of judgment become the norm.

    A strong parliamentary Conservative Party could counter this, but this is the most spineless group of Tory MPs in living memory.
    The rational-crazy reason for an October election is in order to lose it.

    Think of the Johnson government as the crew in a heist movie. We've now reached the stage where they are about to do a runner for the airport, fake passports in hand, while the police chase them.

    Crazy in many ways, and harsh justice for the mugs in the Conservative Party who fell for him. But hey ho. And Johnson does have form for running away when things go sour.

    Under the new rules, are there any checks on a PM who goes mad and decides "I want a General Election and I want it now?"
    That’s “rational-crazy” reasoning for madman Johnson, but is the Conservative Party mad too? Perhaps. Brexit seems to have flipped their lids.

    No sane party *wants* to be in opposition.
    There is no such thing as “a good election to lose”.
    Yes, defeats must be accepted and processed, but they should never be wilfully encouraged.
    Yes, but if Johnson does a May by getting out his podium in Downing St to announce a surprise election, does the Cabinet or Party have the opportunity to stop it?

    I think he would be daft to do it, but then he is well known to be daft!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Do you use any services that require you to have a TV licence?
    Dixon of Dock Green is on your case.
    I missed your answer a few threads ago on how SNP voters view the set of English politicians. Would you remind me of the answer?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501
    Foxy said:

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Punters agree with you, as do I. A 2022 GE would be madness, but then there is the non insignificant risk that Boris Johnson is actually mentally unstable. Long covid? All the years of private and public deceit and cheating? Copious mendacity (what was the true story again?) Open contempt for his person? It must be extremely wearing on a man’s psyche. Errors of judgment become the norm.

    A strong parliamentary Conservative Party could counter this, but this is the most spineless group of Tory MPs in living memory.
    The rational-crazy reason for an October election is in order to lose it.

    Think of the Johnson government as the crew in a heist movie. We've now reached the stage where they are about to do a runner for the airport, fake passports in hand, while the police chase them.

    Crazy in many ways, and harsh justice for the mugs in the Conservative Party who fell for him. But hey ho. And Johnson does have form for running away when things go sour.

    Under the new rules, are there any checks on a PM who goes mad and decides "I want a General Election and I want it now?"
    That’s “rational-crazy” reasoning for madman Johnson, but is the Conservative Party mad too? Perhaps. Brexit seems to have flipped their lids.

    No sane party *wants* to be in opposition.
    There is no such thing as “a good election to lose”.
    Yes, defeats must be accepted and processed, but they should never be wilfully encouraged.
    Yes, but if Johnson does a May by getting out his podium in Downing St to announce a surprise election, does the Cabinet or Party have the opportunity to stop it?

    I think he would be daft to do it, but then he is well known to be daft!
    If the fellow MPs and Party Members don't like it, they could always have a very quick leadership election. Er, perhaps not. Which means they are stuck if he does pull the plug.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    From being a former fan of the BBC and generally its principle ,I think it is going downhill fast especially its website that resembles Hello Magazine more each week.

    Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff

    And 59 radio stations seems a bit much. Is all that output really “public service”? Radio One Dance for example. OK, dancing is good for public health, but toking marijuana isn’t.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Well done you.

    I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
    Do you watch BBC output?
    I’m not a fan of the licence fee. It’s time is long gone in the era of streaming. I find people’s objections to the census disappointing. One if it’s uses is planning of services. How many gps does an area need? Schools? Etc. Why object to that?
    I'm a fan of the BBC. I see the licence fee as money well spent for me in terms of entertainment and information. But I am going to be in a shrinking majority that will become a minority, perhaps within a few years.

    This means the BBC's funding model is becoming increasingly out of place in a changed world.

    Sadly, no government has decided to really address this, and it will eventually lead to the BBC's demise.

    I think the case for Channel 4's privatisation has not been made. But give the fury being shown over that, can you imagine what a major change to the BBC's funding model would produce? Which is why no government will do anything other than tinker around the edges.
    Where’s the fury about channel 4 coming from ? Not the general public but those in the media and creative arts.

    Why should channel 4 be state owned. Privatise it.

    As for the BBC funding the license fee is going. It is what replaces it that is the issue. There is affection for the BBC, but this has been in decline over time, but the license fee is unpopular. It needs to go and not be replaced by any form of taxation.
    I agree that the fury is coming from people in the industry.

    "Why should channel 4 be state owned. Privatise it." Why should it not be state owned?

    However, from a small-c conservative angle: what is the case for Channel 4 being privatised? How will a privatised Channel 4 be better for the country than the current system? What is the reason for the change? If it's just privatised=better, then that is not only arguable, it's a [email protected] reason.

    The government may have a solid case for Channel 4's privatisation. If so, I haven't really seen it amongst the fury.

    The same goes for any change, including nationalisation of industries. The case needs to be made on good grounds, not ones of ideology.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,173
    Pulpstar said:

    My last flight was to Germany with Lufthansa, can't remember which class it was but the flight out included the lounge which as Casino Royale points out makes the whole flying experience much nicer.
    Worse flying experience was the one where I'm fairly certain the shoulders of my skeleton wouldn't have fitted in the wretchedly small chair.

    My credit card gives me lounge access as one of the add-on benefits. I really wouldn't be without that, especially in a big airport.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,044

    From being a former fan of the BBC and generally its principle ,I think it is going downhill fast especially its website that resembles Hello Magazine more each week.

    Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff

    Quite a lot of stuff on the website is also there, similar with features on the news or local news, to act as a plug for BBC shows.

    An article about cookery and disabled people is a plug for a BBC 3 show, Lenny Henry’s comments about white people,and Glastonbury a plug for his upcoming two part documentary it is relentless. The BBC likes to make out its funding model makes it different. It doesn’t.

    The BBC may not be commercial but it acts like a commercial institution. It is time it has to seek its funds in the same way other commercial media outlets do.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    From being a former fan of the BBC and generally its principle ,I think it is going downhill fast especially its website that resembles Hello Magazine more each week.

    Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff

    And 59 radio stations seems a bit much. Is all that output really “public service”? Radio One Dance for example. OK, dancing is good for public health, but toking marijuana isn’t.
    Most of the 59 are local stations surely?, and that is perhaps the best example of public service broadcasting.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Do you use any services that require you to have a TV licence?
    Dixon of Dock Green is on your case.
    I missed your answer a few threads ago on how SNP voters view the set of English politicians. Would you remind me of the answer?
    "English" - you're deliberately distorting the question. Ask a racially loaded question ... Do you mean

    - English born?
    - English educated?
    - Holding an ENglish passport?
    - supporting England at cricket?
    - British?

    When the real issue is one or more of those two:

    - not in Scottish constituencies, Mr Jack and a few Scottish MPs and the MSPs apart?
    - part of the Conservative administration which lacks other than minority support in Scotland?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Was the £1000 fine ever imposed on anybody? I never completed it. Told them to fuck off (and more) when they came to the house but nothing ever happened.
    Well done you.

    I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
    Do you watch BBC output?
    I’m not a fan of the licence fee. It’s time is long gone in the era of streaming. I find people’s objections to the census disappointing. One if it’s uses is planning of services. How many gps does an area need? Schools? Etc. Why object to that?
    I'm a fan of the BBC. I see the licence fee as money well spent for me in terms of entertainment and information. But I am going to be in a shrinking majority that will become a minority, perhaps within a few years.

    This means the BBC's funding model is becoming increasingly out of place in a changed world.

    Sadly, no government has decided to really address this, and it will eventually lead to the BBC's demise.

    I think the case for Channel 4's privatisation has not been made. But give the fury being shown over that, can you imagine what a major change to the BBC's funding model would produce? Which is why no government will do anything other than tinker around the edges.
    Where’s the fury about channel 4 coming from ? Not the general public but those in the media and creative arts.

    Why should channel 4 be state owned. Privatise it.

    As for the BBC funding the license fee is going. It is what replaces it that is the issue. There is affection for the BBC, but this has been in decline over time, but the license fee is unpopular. It needs to go and not be replaced by any form of taxation.
    I agree that the fury is coming from people in the industry.

    "Why should channel 4 be state owned. Privatise it." Why should it not be state owned?

    However, from a small-c conservative angle: what is the case for Channel 4 being privatised? How will a privatised Channel 4 be better for the country than the current system? What is the reason for the change? If it's just privatised=better, then that is not only arguable, it's a [email protected] reason.

    The government may have a solid case for Channel 4's privatisation. If so, I haven't really seen it amongst the fury.

    The same goes for any change, including nationalisation of industries. The case needs to be made on good grounds, not ones of ideology.
    I disagree.

    The case needs to be regularly made for government involvement in anything. The question needs to be “should the government be doing this?”

    When C4 was set up there were a limited number of channels and there wasn’t the range of minority choices available / the commercial funding to support it. Now there is.

    So the government has £ x billion of capital invested in c4. Could that capital be better invested somewhere else?

    Fundamentally the government should be using it resources to do stuff that the private sector can’t/won’t do rather than replicating it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    Foxy said:

    From being a former fan of the BBC and generally its principle ,I think it is going downhill fast especially its website that resembles Hello Magazine more each week.

    Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff

    And 59 radio stations seems a bit much. Is all that output really “public service”? Radio One Dance for example. OK, dancing is good for public health, but toking marijuana isn’t.
    Most of the 59 are local stations surely?, and that is perhaps the best example of public service broadcasting.
    Yes, 40 are local. But why is that necessarily public service? It might be, but often isn’t.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027

    From being a former fan of the BBC and generally its principle ,I think it is going downhill fast especially its website that resembles Hello Magazine more each week.

    Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff

    If you’re going to have a BBC funded in the way it is, then it needs to be distinctive in its output and not simply chasing ratings for advertisers. The majority of their TV and web output isn’t particularly distinctive or badly-served by commercial options.

    A BBC half the size, might represent value for money - but as we have seen already, those in charge would rather make the cuts to the high-brow programming instead.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,044
    Foxy said:

    From being a former fan of the BBC and generally its principle ,I think it is going downhill fast especially its website that resembles Hello Magazine more each week.

    Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff

    And 59 radio stations seems a bit much. Is all that output really “public service”? Radio One Dance for example. OK, dancing is good for public health, but toking marijuana isn’t.
    Most of the 59 are local stations surely?, and that is perhaps the best example of public service broadcasting.
    We also have the local TV stations, a brainchild of the Cameron era based on the US model. These have been a total flop.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    Foxy said:

    There won't be a snap election in October, when things will probably be even worse, and if one was held he'd lose.

    He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.

    Punters agree with you, as do I. A 2022 GE would be madness, but then there is the non insignificant risk that Boris Johnson is actually mentally unstable. Long covid? All the years of private and public deceit and cheating? Copious mendacity (what was the true story again?) Open contempt for his person? It must be extremely wearing on a man’s psyche. Errors of judgment become the norm.

    A strong parliamentary Conservative Party could counter this, but this is the most spineless group of Tory MPs in living memory.
    The rational-crazy reason for an October election is in order to lose it.

    Think of the Johnson government as the crew in a heist movie. We've now reached the stage where they are about to do a runner for the airport, fake passports in hand, while the police chase them.

    Crazy in many ways, and harsh justice for the mugs in the Conservative Party who fell for him. But hey ho. And Johnson does have form for running away when things go sour.

    Under the new rules, are there any checks on a PM who goes mad and decides "I want a General Election and I want it now?"
    That’s “rational-crazy” reasoning for madman Johnson, but is the Conservative Party mad too? Perhaps. Brexit seems to have flipped their lids.

    No sane party *wants* to be in opposition.
    There is no such thing as “a good election to lose”.
    Yes, defeats must be accepted and processed, but they should never be wilfully encouraged.
    Yes, but if Johnson does a May by getting out his podium in Downing St to announce a surprise election, does the Cabinet or Party have the opportunity to stop it?

    I think he would be daft to do it, but then he is well known to be daft!
    No.

    Indeed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027

    From being a former fan of the BBC and generally its principle ,I think it is going downhill fast especially its website that resembles Hello Magazine more each week.

    Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff

    And 59 radio stations seems a bit much. Is all that output really “public service”? Radio One Dance for example. OK, dancing is good for public health, but toking marijuana isn’t.
    One of the standout memories of my youth, was laughing at Radio 1 staging a ‘drug awareness week’, which to most of their teenage audience was a useful instruction manual. To add insult to injury, the song Ebeneezer Goode by The Shamen was at Number 1 at the time, a song whose chorus line definitely wasn’t “E’s are good, E’s are good” :D
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Carnyx said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Do you use any services that require you to have a TV licence?
    Dixon of Dock Green is on your case.
    I missed your answer a few threads ago on how SNP voters view the set of English politicians. Would you remind me of the answer?
    "English" - you're deliberately distorting the question. Ask a racially loaded question ... Do you mean

    - English born?
    - English educated?
    - Holding an ENglish passport?
    - supporting England at cricket?
    - British?

    When the real issue is one or more of those two:

    - not in Scottish constituencies, Mr Jack and a few Scottish MPs and the MSPs apart?
    - part of the Conservative administration which lacks other than minority support in Scotland?
    His original post was “the ratings for Boris Johnson are uniquely terrible”

    I just asked him to disaggregate whether that was Boris Johnson as an individual (which is possible) or whether a proportion of SNP voters down mark anyone they perceive as “English”. Let’s try non-SNP Westminster as an initial definition.

    It really was originally an attempt to understand data. But the fact that all of the SNP folks on here definitively avoided answering made me curious…
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,474
    edited June 19
    The pandemic is definitively and conclusively over if we're having an outbreak of J-class travel rodomontade.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,561
    Mr. Mark, that's true, and why it's called gambling rather than incredibly prudent investment :D
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Am I the only PBer who had to look up "Club Europe" (British Airways Club Class with free posh nosh and lounges, apparently)?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,173
    Carnyx said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Do you use any services that require you to have a TV licence?
    Dixon of Dock Green is on your case.
    I missed your answer a few threads ago on how SNP voters view the set of English politicians. Would you remind me of the answer?
    "English" - you're deliberately distorting the question. Ask a racially loaded question ... Do you mean

    - English born?
    - English educated?
    - Holding an ENglish passport?
    - supporting England at cricket?
    - British?

    When the real issue is one or more of those two:

    - not in Scottish constituencies, Mr Jack and a few Scottish MPs and the MSPs apart?
    - part of the Conservative administration which lacks other than minority support in Scotland?
    Where does one get an English passport? And if so can I get a Welsh one!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728

    Carnyx said:

    Heathener said:

    Eabhal said:

    @onepureradge FPT.

    Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.

    I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.

    I refused on principle to complete the census. Similar reason why I refuse to pay the BBC poll tax.

    I'm a libertarian.
    Do you use any services that require you to have a TV licence?
    Dixon of Dock Green is on your case.
    I missed your answer a few threads ago on how SNP voters view the set of English politicians. Would you remind me of the answer?
    "English" - you're deliberately distorting the question. Ask a racially loaded question ... Do you mean

    - English born?
    - English educated?
    - Holding an ENglish passport?
    - supporting England at cricket?
    - British?

    When the real issue is one or more of those two:

    - not in Scottish constituencies, Mr Jack and a few Scottish MPs and the MSPs apart?
    - part of the Conservative administration which lacks other than minority support in Scotland?
    Where does one get an English passport? And if so can I get a Welsh one!
    Careful, the Welsh don't want their secret to leek out.
Sign In or Register to comment.