Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Baker has some opinions which might surprise people who only think about him as 'Brexit hard man Steve Baker'. I cannot say I am a particular fan, but I do believe he is a principled Brexiteer - he has not stopped being a memebr of the awkward squad even with Brexit Boris winning, which shows that principle.
It might make him find leadership difficult though.
Yes. He is of the sort who need always to be in opposition to something. Like David Davis. And like all the Labour left who prefer losing elections to having to take responsibility for hard decisions.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is done, stick a fork in him, he has no power. If anything, he is the caretaker.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently
Oh don’t take pretend offence. It’s boring. Ok - nobody in the U.K. who can see how this is actually developing.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
No, it's not that they have unfashionable views. It's that they allow religion to dictate things that are utterly at odds with their instinct. That makes them look weird beyond belief.
Had Tim Farron been a staunch, right wing Tory, actually his position would have landed okay. But he genuinely is a liberal, and the tortured, prayerful approach to the matter just came over as deranged as it was so utterly at odds with everything else about him.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
Ancient history was never my strong point, but how long did Maggie serve as Jani-Tory?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
The last thing we need is religious BS being imported from the US to our politics.
I couldn't care less if Baker is an evangelical, a Methodist, an atheist, a Mormon, a Jew or a Scientologist so long as he keeps his religion to himself and doesn't try and shove it upon everyone else via Parliament.
But they do not. Just look at the US and imagine that sort of cr*p trying to happen over here.
Not really possible.
This is Reagan’s education secretary on Fox recently…
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
The last thing we need is religious BS being imported from the US to our politics.
I couldn't care less if Baker is an evangelical, a Methodist, an atheist, a Mormon, a Jew or a Scientologist so long as he keeps his religion to himself and doesn't try and shove it upon everyone else via Parliament.
But they do not. Just look at the US and imagine that sort of cr*p trying to happen over here.
Not really possible.
This is Reagan’s education secretary on Fox recently…
We often say stuff like "It would never happen here", but we said that about Brexit and we never imagined a PM would behave like Boris. We laughed and scorned Trump for refusing to go, but look at the last few days in Westminster.
The time to call out this stuff is not after it happens, but before it has time to get started. Our freedoms have been hard won and the last thing we need is some folk trying to drag us back a few hundred years because of their own insecurities.
It can happen here. And it will happen here if we let it.
Hard to see Wallace not moving to No 10 now, if he wins the MPs vote he may even be elected Tory leader and become PM before the membership vote. For as Yougov shows he is comfortably ahead with the membership anyway.
The 1922 cttee will announce the leadership timetable next week
I would suggest it is very early days. Let's see what they all have to say.
Do we envisage any political comebacks in a new government. Damian Green? Greg Clark?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Baker has some opinions which might surprise people who only think about him as 'Brexit hard man Steve Baker'. I cannot say I am a particular fan, but I do believe he is a principled Brexiteer - he has not stopped being a memebr of the awkward squad even with Brexit Boris winning, which shows that principle.
It might make him find leadership difficult though.
His comments today on why he’d like the job - he wants a leader he can support - don’t exactly scream inclusive leadership.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently
Oh don’t take pretend offence. It’s boring. Ok - nobody in the U.K. who can see how this is actually developing.
SeaShanty has managed to brainwash himself into thinking that Boris is Hitler/Putin.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
Oh God, I hadn’t spotted that. He’s not really suggesting Boris will do a Trump? That’s both bonkers and impossible in our system.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
The only official caretaker PMs in the last 200 years were Wellington in 1834 and Churchill in 1945.
Johnson is caretaker leader of the party. He is still the PM.
But I agree. He won't try to hang on once a new leader is around.
The wound to his ego is too deep.
Boris is a caretaker PM as of today, that is the official convention. May, Cameron, Brown and Blair were all caretaker PMs in their final days too.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
Hope you are correct about how superior UK is to USA on THIS question.
But reckon you'd have LOL if yours truly OR anyone else had predicted the Big-Dog pig-shit of last 24 hours?
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
I want Boris gone not even as caretaker, but the Trump stuff always gets taken too far. Trump lost an election and then sought in many ways to overturn that and stay in power. Boris lost no election, not even an internal party one, so was entitled to try to make them formally kick him out, he was just very stupid to do that as it has only made things worse. And even then he belatedly realised he couldn't carry on morally.
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
What? Not my impression that the Islamic community are protected from scrutiny - their beliefs are widely and IMo unfairly regarded with suspicion, and attacked every few days in mainstream media, because some lunatics claim to share them. Evangelicals are seen as a bit cranky, but few would go further than that. I don't really care what Baker's beliefs are, unless they affect his policies.
Hard to see Wallace not moving to No 10 now, if he wins the MPs vote he may even be elected Tory leader and become PM before the membership vote. For as Yougov shows he is comfortably ahead with the membership anyway.
The 1922 cttee will announce the leadership timetable next week
I would suggest it is very early days. Let's see what they all have to say.
Do we envisage any political comebacks in a new government. Damian Green? Greg Clark?
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
If you believe Dominic Cummings the Tories would be making a HUGE mistake letting Boris squat because they'll never get rid of him. He'll play for time and find reasons to start a rearguard action.
It's a dark time. No, not with politics, but a new Windows era - the 'do you want Windows 11' prompts have been getting increasingly pushy and annoying, as with Windows 10.
I clicked yes, and my printer hasn't worked properly since. Resist!
I clicked yes and I hated it. Mainly because it would take 6 steps to sort out my WiFi if the connection dropped out instead of right clicking on the WiFi symbol and selecting "Troubleshoot problems" when it happens which fixes it every time on Windows 10. It seems that half the options on things have been hidden away, presumably to be more "user friendly" not to offer so many options, but I know what I'm doing and I want those options conveniently available to me. 👎
Back on 10 now, and I have no intention of "upgrading" until I hear decent things about it. Which I expect to be about when hell freezes over, or when Windows 12 is released.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
If you believe Dominic Cummings the Tories would be making a HUGE mistake letting Boris squat because they'll never get rid of him. He'll play for time and find reasons to start a rearguard action.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
If you believe Dominic Cummings the Tories would be making a HUGE mistake letting Boris squat because they'll never get rid of him. He'll play for time and find reasons to start a rearguard action.
If anyone would know he would.
Oh, give over!
Cummings is desperate to be relevant and part of the story.
Boris has accepted defeat, without ever even losing a vote. Its over, the race is already begun for his successor and he is not a candidate. There is no coming back from that, whatever some delusional ranters on the net want to say to get likes or Retweets or people paying to read their blog.
Wiki - "Perceval went to Harrow School, where he was a disciplined and hard-working pupil. It was at Harrow that he developed an interest in evangelical Anglicanism"
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
I want Boris gone not even as caretaker, but the Trump stuff always gets taken too far. Trump lost an election and then sought in many ways to overturn that and stay in power. Boris lost no election, not even an internal party one, so was entitled to try to make them formally kick him out, he was just very stupid to do that as it has only made things worse. And even then he belatedly realised he couldn't carry on morally.
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
We will hardly hear from Boris again in public. There's PMQs next week, if he does that (and it will be interesting to see how SKS handles it if he does) and if there's some sort of emergency or disaster. Other than that, no.
Fun Fact: New Direction was a 1980s girlie mag (I got that fact from a Danny Baker show) New Directions is the magazine of Forward In Faith (no lady vicars Anglicans)
I think that the only thing I could never quit is the first coffee of the day. I have not gone a day without it since I was 15. Every morning without fail the first thing I do is make a cup of coffee.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
Yes, I think Farron was hard done by by the media. The essence of Liberalism is not forcing your views on others, so he was very different to the American religious right.
The media find it very hard to see what a liberal society is. It isn't one where everyone has the same 'liberal' view. It's one where you are free to have different views while giving the same freedom to others by not banning things.
Farron is, SFAICS, a proper liberal. Quite a lot of Christians are.
Agreed. Most of the people who call themselves liberal are extremely illiberal of other peoples views, or their right to hold views contrary to their own.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
The only official caretaker PMs in the last 200 years were Wellington in 1834 and Churchill in 1945.
Johnson is caretaker leader of the party. He is still the PM.
But I agree. He won't try to hang on once a new leader is around.
The wound to his ego is too deep.
Boris is a caretaker PM as of today, that is the official convention. May, Cameron, Brown and Blair were all caretaker PMs in their final days too.
No, it isn't. A prime minister is whoever commands the confidence of the House. They resign on losing that confidence.
They may stay in office after resigning, as a caretaker, if the sovereign asks them to. That doesn't apply here because AIUI he has not resigned as PM, merely said he will once a successor is elected, which is different.
Before 1832 it was common for Prime Ministers to stay in office as caretakers after resigning until new coalitions could be formed. This was the arcane, long obsolete, convention Brown relied on in not resigning in 2010. Lord North did in 1782, so did Pitt the Younger in 1803, so did Grenville in 1807 and Wellington in 1830 and 1832. But now, they resign as party leaders first and then as PM once a successor is elected - May, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, Wilson, Macmillan, Eden all followed this pattern (clouded in Eden's case by the fact he was on sick leave at the time).
It's a dark time. No, not with politics, but a new Windows era - the 'do you want Windows 11' prompts have been getting increasingly pushy and annoying, as with Windows 10.
I clicked yes, and my printer hasn't worked properly since. Resist!
I clicked yes and I hated it. Mainly because it would take 6 steps to sort out my WiFi if the connection dropped out instead of right clicking on the WiFi symbol and selecting "Troubleshoot problems" when it happens which fixes it every time on Windows 10. It seems that half the options on things have been hidden away, presumably to be more "user friendly" not to offer so many options, but I know what I'm doing and I want those options conveniently available to me. 👎
Back on 10 now, and I have no intention of "upgrading" until I hear decent things about it. Which I expect to be about when hell freezes over, or when Windows 12 is released.
Wifi dropping out? Are you serious?
I am so glad I use Ubuntu Linux
Yeah, I suspect its an issue with my Wifi hub, but I can't be bothered to chase Sky up to replace it.
Refreshing network settings gets it all back up and running and that just takes a few seconds, but the option to do it was buried behind settings instead of easily accessible at a click on Windows 10. If that's been removed from being easily accessible on Windows 11, it makes me wonder what else has been?
It's a dark time. No, not with politics, but a new Windows era - the 'do you want Windows 11' prompts have been getting increasingly pushy and annoying, as with Windows 10.
I clicked yes, and my printer hasn't worked properly since. Resist!
I clicked yes and I hated it. Mainly because it would take 6 steps to sort out my WiFi if the connection dropped out instead of right clicking on the WiFi symbol and selecting "Troubleshoot problems" when it happens which fixes it every time on Windows 10. It seems that half the options on things have been hidden away, presumably to be more "user friendly" not to offer so many options, but I know what I'm doing and I want those options conveniently available to me. 👎
Back on 10 now, and I have no intention of "upgrading" until I hear decent things about it. Which I expect to be about when hell freezes over, or when Windows 12 is released.
Of the two people who actually know the Conservative Party on the inside, one is touting Wallace, the other Mordaunt.
Both are essentially unknown the the wider public, and to some extent even to colleagues.
Shows what a massive shitberg there has been clogging up the party, that any number of putative front-runners are essentially not up to it.
A Wallace-Mordaunt battle would be an interesting bloodsport.
Wallace was a Remainer; Mordaunt a Leaver. Wallace is old school Tory; Mordaunt is “woke”. Wallace is a much admired Defence Sec; Mordaunt held the job for about five minutes. Wallace is “Scottish”, Mordaunt is from one the most Southern seats in the country.
Who might Gove choose? How much might the ERGers trust Mordaunt?
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
I want Boris gone not even as caretaker, but the Trump stuff always gets taken too far. Trump lost an election and then sought in many ways to overturn that and stay in power. Boris lost no election, not even an internal party one, so was entitled to try to make them formally kick him out, he was just very stupid to do that as it has only made things worse. And even then he belatedly realised he couldn't carry on morally.
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
I agree that the Trump comparisons tend to diminish the magnitude of what happened there.
Johnson is a pathological liar. Vain, arrogant, selfish, and utterly unsuitable for office.
But Trump actively encouraged an attempted coup in which people died and, had he and his mob been more competent, many would have died. Democracy was genuinely under threat from that man (and possibly still is).
Trump deserves to be behind bars. Johnson deserves to be out of office and, perhaps, a degree of pity.
If she campaigns in black leather, carrying a whip, she will be guaranteed the votes of a significant section of the Tory membership (although probably not of their wives).
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Of the two people who actually know the Conservative Party on the inside, one is touting Wallace, the other Mordaunt.
Both are essentially unknown the the wider public, and to some extent even to colleagues.
Shows what a massive shitberg there has been clogging up the party, that any number of putative front-runners are essentially not up to it.
A Wallace-Mordaunt battle would be an interesting bloodsport.
Wallace was a Remainer; Mordaunt a Leaver. Wallace is old school Tory; Mordaunt is “woke”. Wallace is a much admired Defence Sec; Mordaunt held the job for about five minutes. Wallace is “Scottish”, Mordaunt is from one the most Southern seats in the country.
Who might Gove choose? How much might the ERGers trust Mordaunt?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
What? Not my impression that the Islamic community are protected from scrutiny - their beliefs are widely and IMo unfairly regarded with suspicion, and attacked every few days in mainstream media, because some lunatics claim to share them. Evangelicals are seen as a bit cranky, but few would go further than that. I don't really care what Baker's beliefs are, unless they affect his policies.
Trying too hard there, Nick. Do you think the lunatics fabricated the word or the concept of jihad and faked its relevance to mainstream Islam?
Of the two people who actually know the Conservative Party on the inside, one is touting Wallace, the other Mordaunt.
Both are essentially unknown the the wider public, and to some extent even to colleagues.
Shows what a massive shitberg there has been clogging up the party, that any number of putative front-runners are essentially not up to it.
A Wallace-Mordaunt battle would be an interesting bloodsport.
Wallace was a Remainer; Mordaunt a Leaver. Wallace is old school Tory; Mordaunt is “woke”. Wallace is a much admired Defence Sec; Mordaunt held the job for about five minutes. Wallace is “Scottish”, Mordaunt is from one the most Southern seats in the country.
Who might Gove choose? How much might the ERGers trust Mordaunt?
Once you consider all the rivals that The Janitor elbowed into the gutter so he could get to be Prime Minister, and all the possible successors who haven't been given space to grow since 2019 (so he can be the tall poppy), it's not surprising that the Conservative talent cupboard is pretty bare.
Of the two people who actually know the Conservative Party on the inside, one is touting Wallace, the other Mordaunt.
Both are essentially unknown the the wider public, and to some extent even to colleagues.
Shows what a massive shitberg there has been clogging up the party, that any number of putative front-runners are essentially not up to it.
A Wallace-Mordaunt battle would be an interesting bloodsport.
Wallace was a Remainer; Mordaunt a Leaver. Wallace is old school Tory; Mordaunt is “woke”. Wallace is a much admired Defence Sec; Mordaunt held the job for about five minutes. Wallace is “Scottish”, Mordaunt is from one the most Southern seats in the country.
Who might Gove choose? How much might the ERGers trust Mordaunt?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
What? Not my impression that the Islamic community are protected from scrutiny - their beliefs are widely and IMo unfairly regarded with suspicion, and attacked every few days in mainstream media, because some lunatics claim to share them. Evangelicals are seen as a bit cranky, but few would go further than that. I don't really care what Baker's beliefs are, unless they affect his policies.
Trying too hard there, Nick. Do you think the lunatics fabricated the word or the concept of jihad and faked its relevance to mainstream Islam?
The original meaning of the word Jihad was "struggle" but the loonies perverted the meaning
The original meaning of the word spin was about rotation, but it in politics it means "lie"
The crazies and liars of the world misappropriate all sorts of stuff
Of the two people who actually know the Conservative Party on the inside, one is touting Wallace, the other Mordaunt.
Both are essentially unknown the the wider public, and to some extent even to colleagues.
Shows what a massive shitberg there has been clogging up the party, that any number of putative front-runners are essentially not up to it.
A Wallace-Mordaunt battle would be an interesting bloodsport.
Wallace was a Remainer; Mordaunt a Leaver. Wallace is old school Tory; Mordaunt is “woke”. Wallace is a much admired Defence Sec; Mordaunt held the job for about five minutes. Wallace is “Scottish”, Mordaunt is from one the most Southern seats in the country.
Who might Gove choose? How much might the ERGers trust Mordaunt?
Once you consider all the rivals that The Janitor elbowed into the gutter so he could get to be Prime Minister, and all the possible successors who haven't been given space to grow since 2019 (so he can be the tall poppy), it's not surprising that the Conservative talent cupboard is pretty bare.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
The only official caretaker PMs in the last 200 years were Wellington in 1834 and Churchill in 1945.
Johnson is caretaker leader of the party. He is still the PM.
But I agree. He won't try to hang on once a new leader is around.
The wound to his ego is too deep.
Boris is a caretaker PM as of today, that is the official convention. May, Cameron, Brown and Blair were all caretaker PMs in their final days too.
No, it isn't. A prime minister is whoever commands the confidence of the House. They resign on losing that confidence.
They may stay in office after resigning, as a caretaker, if the sovereign asks them to. That doesn't apply here because AIUI he has not resigned as PM, merely said he will once a successor is elected, which is different.
Before 1832 it was common for Prime Ministers to stay in office as caretakers after resigning until new coalitions could be formed. This was the arcane, long obsolete, convention Brown relied on in not resigning in 2010. Lord North did in 1782, so did Pitt the Younger in 1803, so did Grenville in 1807 and Wellington in 1830 and 1832. But now, they resign as party leaders first and then as PM once a successor is elected - May, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, Wilson, Macmillan, Eden all followed this pattern (clouded in Eden's case by the fact he was on sick leave at the time).
Anyway, I am off to bed. Have a nice evening.
Caretaker governments have frequently been in in existence in recent times and while the Cabinet Manual doesn't use the term explicitly it does have guidelines that apply during periods of caretaker governments - which of course incorporates every General Election too incidentally!
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
I want Boris gone not even as caretaker, but the Trump stuff always gets taken too far. Trump lost an election and then sought in many ways to overturn that and stay in power. Boris lost no election, not even an internal party one, so was entitled to try to make them formally kick him out, he was just very stupid to do that as it has only made things worse. And even then he belatedly realised he couldn't carry on morally.
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
I agree that the Trump comparisons tend to diminish the magnitude of what happened there.
Johnson is a pathological liar. Vain, arrogant, selfish, and utterly unsuitable for office.
But Trump actively encouraged an attempted coup in which people died and, had he and his mob been more competent, many would have died. Democracy was genuinely under threat from that man (and possibly still is).
Trump deserves to be behind bars. Johnson deserves to be out of office and, perhaps, a degree of pity.
But the Trump coup stuff is hindsight talking. A lot of people didn't believe he would do something like that until he did, and claimed such things were impossible, and chided those who feared he would try to cling on.
I'm not drawing an equivalence, but do watch out for hindsight.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
What? Not my impression that the Islamic community are protected from scrutiny - their beliefs are widely and IMo unfairly regarded with suspicion, and attacked every few days in mainstream media, because some lunatics claim to share them. Evangelicals are seen as a bit cranky, but few would go further than that. I don't really care what Baker's beliefs are, unless they affect his policies.
Trying too hard there, Nick. Do you think the lunatics fabricated the word or the concept of jihad and faked its relevance to mainstream Islam?
The original meaning of the word Jihad was "struggle" but the loonies perverted the meaning
The original meaning of the word spin was about rotation, but it in politics it means "lie"
The crazies and liars of the world misappropriate all sorts of stuff
I know exactly what the original meaning of jihad is, thanks. I also know how old and how mainstream its current meaning is in Islam.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
I want Boris gone not even as caretaker, but the Trump stuff always gets taken too far. Trump lost an election and then sought in many ways to overturn that and stay in power. Boris lost no election, not even an internal party one, so was entitled to try to make them formally kick him out, he was just very stupid to do that as it has only made things worse. And even then he belatedly realised he couldn't carry on morally.
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
I agree that the Trump comparisons tend to diminish the magnitude of what happened there.
Johnson is a pathological liar. Vain, arrogant, selfish, and utterly unsuitable for office.
But Trump actively encouraged an attempted coup in which people died and, had he and his mob been more competent, many would have died. Democracy was genuinely under threat from that man (and possibly still is).
Trump deserves to be behind bars. Johnson deserves to be out of office and, perhaps, a degree of pity.
But the Trump coup stuff is hindsight talking. A lot of people didn't believe he would do something like that until he did, and claimed such things were impossible, and chided those who feared he would try to cling on.
I'm not drawing an equivalence, but do watch out for hindsight.
Absolutely, but Trump refused to concede defeat, despite losing the election. Boris already has, despite not losing one.
The two scenarios couldn't be more different, thankfully.
I think that the only thing I could never quit is the first coffee of the day. I have not gone a day without it since I was 15. Every morning without fail the first thing I do is make a cup of coffee.
I think that the only thing I could never quit is the first coffee of the day. I have not gone a day without it since I was 15. Every morning without fail the first thing I do is make a cup of coffee.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
He later changed his mind on the issue, like many others have done.
The Benny Hill theme tune has been blasted outside Parliament live on TV ahead of Boris Johnson's resignation – and it turns out Hugh Grant was behind it"
What price Hugh Grant playing Boris in a biopic (and in a wig)?
Isn't he, er, a little petit?
Round the waist, I mean.
Yes, he would need to put on a good deal of muscle to be realistic in the role.
Yep, really get with the Charles Atlas springy thing. Or just get him to do a remake of the Frank Launder film Wee Geordie. All the muscle needed to do a Boris!
Charles Atlas?
Would need less korma and more Tim Curry.
CA is this chap here. Obvs the guru for your hero Boris. Solid muscle, all the way round the 44" waist.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
That depends if their entirely proper and appropriate hatred of Nazism led them to make incorrect assessments of the facts, surely?
I loathe Trump, and my criticisms of him could not be dismissed merely because I hate him, but equally I could occasionally be wrong about a specific thing, despite being right about him overall.
It's a dark time. No, not with politics, but a new Windows era - the 'do you want Windows 11' prompts have been getting increasingly pushy and annoying, as with Windows 10.
I clicked yes, and my printer hasn't worked properly since. Resist!
I clicked yes and I hated it. Mainly because it would take 6 steps to sort out my WiFi if the connection dropped out instead of right clicking on the WiFi symbol and selecting "Troubleshoot problems" when it happens which fixes it every time on Windows 10. It seems that half the options on things have been hidden away, presumably to be more "user friendly" not to offer so many options, but I know what I'm doing and I want those options conveniently available to me. 👎
Back on 10 now, and I have no intention of "upgrading" until I hear decent things about it. Which I expect to be about when hell freezes over, or when Windows 12 is released.
Wifi dropping out? Are you serious?
I am so glad I use Ubuntu Linux
Yeah, I suspect its an issue with my Wifi hub, but I can't be bothered to chase Sky up to replace it.
Refreshing network settings gets it all back up and running and that just takes a few seconds, but the option to do it was buried behind settings instead of easily accessible at a click on Windows 10. If that's been removed from being easily accessible on Windows 11, it makes me wonder what else has been?
Most home Wifi hubs run Linux
I used my daughter's Windows laptop a few weeks back and it was a horrible experience. In so many ways the GUI had the feel of Windows XP with tarted up dialog boxes. I know the underlying code has changed a lot and they have maintained a lot of backward compatibility in the interface, but it felt so clunky.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
The only official caretaker PMs in the last 200 years were Wellington in 1834 and Churchill in 1945.
Johnson is caretaker leader of the party. He is still the PM.
But I agree. He won't try to hang on once a new leader is around.
The wound to his ego is too deep.
Boris is a caretaker PM as of today, that is the official convention. May, Cameron, Brown and Blair were all caretaker PMs in their final days too.
Wilson and Thatcher too for a couple of weeks... Of course Major was never a "caretaker" because he took the Tories down to their worst general election defeat since the Duke Of Wellington and was out on his ear immediately lol...
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
First day without caffeine almost over, definitely got a headache but as @TOPPING predicted, I feel really good otherwise. No heartburn or indigestion at all which I'd normally be having to deal with around this time of the evening.
Spent the day off work obviously and I've also got tomorrow and Monday off sick just to recover properly.
My wife broke into tears a couple of times today because my mortality seems to have suddenly become very visible but she seems fine after reading about the condition and my drive to eliminate caffeine and reduce my sugar intake.
Overall still a very sobering experience and I feel very fragile. My cousin (a doctor) pointed out that if I had known about this condition beforehand I'd have probably not been offered the Moderna vaccine and got AZ or Pfizer instead just as there's a known risk factor around heart tissue weakening with Moderna to a degree that isn't the case with AZ and Pfizer. He's recommended me a specialist to essentially see if there's any damage and how to remedy it.
Have to say that having a daughter has made my response to this completely different to what I'd imagine would be the case if I didn't have one. I never thought that would be the case.
Dude. This sounds quite serious - a little more serious than perhaps you first suggested
Do you think the stress of early parenting was an issue, or did the docs say this was already in the post?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Why should a conscientious objector get to avoid military service when their compatriots are dying in war?
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
Um, no, not at all. I'm pointing out that SSI has misunderstood the British system, and given a plausible reason why.
The Benny Hill theme tune has been blasted outside Parliament live on TV ahead of Boris Johnson's resignation – and it turns out Hugh Grant was behind it"
What price Hugh Grant playing Boris in a biopic (and in a wig)?
Isn't he, er, a little petit?
Round the waist, I mean.
Yes, he would need to put on a good deal of muscle to be realistic in the role.
Yep, really get with the Charles Atlas springy thing. Or just get him to do a remake of the Frank Launder film Wee Geordie. All the muscle needed to do a Boris!
Charles Atlas?
Would need less korma and more Tim Curry.
CA is this chap here. Obvs the guru for your hero Boris. Solid muscle, all the way round the 44" waist.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
Yes, I think Farron was hard done by by the media. The essence of Liberalism is not forcing your views on others, so he was very different to the American religious right.
The media find it very hard to see what a liberal society is. It isn't one where everyone has the same 'liberal' view. It's one where you are free to have different views while giving the same freedom to others by not banning things.
Farron is, SFAICS, a proper liberal. Quite a lot of Christians are.
Agreed. Most of the people who call themselves liberal are extremely illiberal of other peoples views, or their right to hold views contrary to their own.
The new Calvinists. Convinced of their own righteousness and secular salvation. Anyone else is inherently wrong by definition and, to many with that creed, need to be persecuted.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
True, Farron didn't try to force people to discriminate against gays. He just tried to ensure it would be legal to discriminate against gays.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
The only official caretaker PMs in the last 200 years were Wellington in 1834 and Churchill in 1945.
Johnson is caretaker leader of the party. He is still the PM.
But I agree. He won't try to hang on once a new leader is around.
The wound to his ego is too deep.
Boris is a caretaker PM as of today, that is the official convention. May, Cameron, Brown and Blair were all caretaker PMs in their final days too.
Wilson and Thatcher too for a couple of weeks... Of course Major was never a "caretaker" because he took the Tories down to their worst general election defeat since the Duke Of Wellington and was out on his ear immediately lol...
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
I want Boris gone not even as caretaker, but the Trump stuff always gets taken too far. Trump lost an election and then sought in many ways to overturn that and stay in power. Boris lost no election, not even an internal party one, so was entitled to try to make them formally kick him out, he was just very stupid to do that as it has only made things worse. And even then he belatedly realised he couldn't carry on morally.
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
I agree that the Trump comparisons tend to diminish the magnitude of what happened there.
Johnson is a pathological liar. Vain, arrogant, selfish, and utterly unsuitable for office.
But Trump actively encouraged an attempted coup in which people died and, had he and his mob been more competent, many would have died. Democracy was genuinely under threat from that man (and possibly still is).
Trump deserves to be behind bars. Johnson deserves to be out of office and, perhaps, a degree of pity.
I agree with all of that, apart from the very last bit.
For anybody who thinks Boris deserves a bit of pity or sympathy, I'd suggest that they ask themselves: "What if our positions were reversed? Would Boris display any sympathy or compassion for me"? Thought not.
The Benny Hill theme tune has been blasted outside Parliament live on TV ahead of Boris Johnson's resignation – and it turns out Hugh Grant was behind it"
What price Hugh Grant playing Boris in a biopic (and in a wig)?
Isn't he, er, a little petit?
Round the waist, I mean.
Yes, he would need to put on a good deal of muscle to be realistic in the role.
Yep, really get with the Charles Atlas springy thing. Or just get him to do a remake of the Frank Launder film Wee Geordie. All the muscle needed to do a Boris!
Charles Atlas?
Would need less korma and more Tim Curry.
CA is this chap here. Obvs the guru for your hero Boris. Solid muscle, all the way round the 44" waist.
The Benny Hill theme tune has been blasted outside Parliament live on TV ahead of Boris Johnson's resignation – and it turns out Hugh Grant was behind it"
What price Hugh Grant playing Boris in a biopic (and in a wig)?
Isn't he, er, a little petit?
Round the waist, I mean.
Yes, he would need to put on a good deal of muscle to be realistic in the role.
Yep, really get with the Charles Atlas springy thing. Or just get him to do a remake of the Frank Launder film Wee Geordie. All the muscle needed to do a Boris!
Charles Atlas?
Would need less korma and more Tim Curry.
CA is this chap here. Obvs the guru for your hero Boris. Solid muscle, all the way round the 44" waist.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
What? Not my impression that the Islamic community are protected from scrutiny - their beliefs are widely and IMo unfairly regarded with suspicion, and attacked every few days in mainstream media, because some lunatics claim to share them. Evangelicals are seen as a bit cranky, but few would go further than that. I don't really care what Baker's beliefs are, unless they affect his policies.
How often is the fairly rampant anti Semitism of some Muslim communities addressed? Seldom. How often is the widespread homophobia of many Muslim communities addressed? Never, as far as I can see
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
The only official caretaker PMs in the last 200 years were Wellington in 1834 and Churchill in 1945.
Johnson is caretaker leader of the party. He is still the PM.
But I agree. He won't try to hang on once a new leader is around.
The wound to his ego is too deep.
Boris is a caretaker PM as of today, that is the official convention. May, Cameron, Brown and Blair were all caretaker PMs in their final days too.
Wilson and Thatcher too for a couple of weeks... Of course Major was never a "caretaker" because he took the Tories down to their worst general election defeat since the Duke Of Wellington and was out on his ear immediately lol...
Didn’t he do one or two PMQs as opposition leader after the 97 rout?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
True, Farron didn't try to force people to discriminate against gays. He just tried to ensure it would be legal to discriminate against gays.
One of Tim Farron’s uni friends was gay and committed suicide in (I think from memory) 2002.
It's a dark time. No, not with politics, but a new Windows era - the 'do you want Windows 11' prompts have been getting increasingly pushy and annoying, as with Windows 10.
I clicked yes, and my printer hasn't worked properly since. Resist!
I clicked yes and I hated it. Mainly because it would take 6 steps to sort out my WiFi if the connection dropped out instead of right clicking on the WiFi symbol and selecting "Troubleshoot problems" when it happens which fixes it every time on Windows 10. It seems that half the options on things have been hidden away, presumably to be more "user friendly" not to offer so many options, but I know what I'm doing and I want those options conveniently available to me. 👎
Back on 10 now, and I have no intention of "upgrading" until I hear decent things about it. Which I expect to be about when hell freezes over, or when Windows 12 is released.
Wifi dropping out? Are you serious?
I am so glad I use Ubuntu Linux
Yeah, I suspect its an issue with my Wifi hub, but I can't be bothered to chase Sky up to replace it.
Refreshing network settings gets it all back up and running and that just takes a few seconds, but the option to do it was buried behind settings instead of easily accessible at a click on Windows 10. If that's been removed from being easily accessible on Windows 11, it makes me wonder what else has been?
Most home Wifi hubs run Linux
I used my daughter's Windows laptop a few weeks back and it was a horrible experience. In so many ways the GUI had the feel of Windows XP with tarted up dialog boxes. I know the underlying code has changed a lot and they have maintained a lot of backward compatibility in the interface, but it felt so clunky.
This is a truly last century point. Your problem in this instance is a crap laptop, not its OS. They are so much of a muchness these days that if it is working properly you never notice what the OS actually is.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
True, Farron didn't try to force people to discriminate against gays. He just tried to ensure it would be legal to discriminate against gays.
In certain defined situations yes. Those defined situations being the ones that were the case when the the law was coming in, as a sort of grandfather right.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
Interestingly, religion was strictly optional in Scotland when it came to marriages - they were primarily a civil contract before witnesses (unless you were RC or Episcopalian and had this notion that marriage was a sacrament). That's why it's fatal to serious historical research to assume that most people will be in the [Established] Church of Scotland parish registers for historical research before compulsory state registration of births, marriages and deaths. Many people just didn't marry with the mediation of a minister, Established or not.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
Yes, I think Farron was hard done by by the media. The essence of Liberalism is not forcing your views on others, so he was very different to the American religious right.
The media find it very hard to see what a liberal society is. It isn't one where everyone has the same 'liberal' view. It's one where you are free to have different views while giving the same freedom to others by not banning things.
Farron is, SFAICS, a proper liberal. Quite a lot of Christians are.
The Benny Hill theme tune has been blasted outside Parliament live on TV ahead of Boris Johnson's resignation – and it turns out Hugh Grant was behind it"
What price Hugh Grant playing Boris in a biopic (and in a wig)?
Isn't he, er, a little petit?
Round the waist, I mean.
Yes, he would need to put on a good deal of muscle to be realistic in the role.
Yep, really get with the Charles Atlas springy thing. Or just get him to do a remake of the Frank Launder film Wee Geordie. All the muscle needed to do a Boris!
Charles Atlas?
Would need less korma and more Tim Curry.
CA is this chap here. Obvs the guru for your hero Boris. Solid muscle, all the way round the 44" waist.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
I want Boris gone not even as caretaker, but the Trump stuff always gets taken too far. Trump lost an election and then sought in many ways to overturn that and stay in power. Boris lost no election, not even an internal party one, so was entitled to try to make them formally kick him out, he was just very stupid to do that as it has only made things worse. And even then he belatedly realised he couldn't carry on morally.
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
I agree that the Trump comparisons tend to diminish the magnitude of what happened there.
Johnson is a pathological liar. Vain, arrogant, selfish, and utterly unsuitable for office.
But Trump actively encouraged an attempted coup in which people died and, had he and his mob been more competent, many would have died. Democracy was genuinely under threat from that man (and possibly still is).
Trump deserves to be behind bars. Johnson deserves to be out of office and, perhaps, a degree of pity.
But the Trump coup stuff is hindsight talking. A lot of people didn't believe he would do something like that until he did, and claimed such things were impossible, and chided those who feared he would try to cling on.
I'm not drawing an equivalence, but do watch out for hindsight.
Absolutely, but Trump refused to concede defeat, despite losing the election. Boris already has, despite not losing one.
The two scenarios couldn't be more different, thankfully.
They COULD be more different; in some aspects of their character they are similar and they have both have form for at least flouting convention. That's what worries some people, because convention is at the heart of our system. Those who are assuming the sky will fall in should relax a little. But those who are wary are totally justified in their wariness. We already know Boris is the type to break rules, conventions and laws. So whatever our understanding is of leaving office, it cannot be predicated solely on him obeying rules, conventions, and laws. We must seek alternative sources of reassurance. I believe those sources are present.
Comments
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
Had Tim Farron been a staunch, right wing Tory, actually his position would have landed okay. But he genuinely is a liberal, and the tortured, prayerful approach to the matter just came over as deranged as it was so utterly at odds with everything else about him.
And @CorrectHorseBattery too.
The time to call out this stuff is not after it happens, but before it has time to get started. Our freedoms have been hard won and the last thing we need is some folk trying to drag us back a few hundred years because of their own insecurities.
It can happen here. And it will happen here if we let it.
Do we envisage any political comebacks in a new government. Damian Green? Greg Clark?
But reckon you'd have LOL if yours truly OR anyone else had predicted the Big-Dog pig-shit of last 24 hours?
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
If anyone would know he would.
I am so glad I use Ubuntu Linux
What they shouldn't do is lead someone to trample over others rights and beliefs because they think only their beliefs matter.
If someone thinks that they should not be an MP, they should be US Supreme Court Justice.
Cummings is desperate to be relevant and part of the story.
Boris has accepted defeat, without ever even losing a vote. Its over, the race is already begun for his successor and he is not a candidate. There is no coming back from that, whatever some delusional ranters on the net want to say to get likes or Retweets or people paying to read their blog.
Wiki - "Perceval went to Harrow School, where he was a disciplined and hard-working pupil. It was at Harrow that he developed an interest in evangelical Anglicanism"
https://www.amazon.com/Spencer-Perceval-Evangelical-Minister-1762-1812/dp/0719000874
"The university [Cambridge] developed his love of literature, added to the number of his friends, and made him an evangelical." (page 6)
"[Perceval] had both the virtues and the vices belonging to an evangelical." (page 16)
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
New Direction was a 1980s girlie mag (I got that fact from a Danny Baker show)
New Directions is the magazine of Forward In Faith (no lady vicars Anglicans)
I wonder if it was incredible naivety...
They may stay in office after resigning, as a caretaker, if the sovereign asks them to. That doesn't apply here because AIUI he has not resigned as PM, merely said he will once a successor is elected, which is different.
Before 1832 it was common for Prime Ministers to stay in office as caretakers after resigning until new coalitions could be formed. This was the arcane, long obsolete, convention Brown relied on in not resigning in 2010. Lord North did in 1782, so did Pitt the Younger in 1803, so did Grenville in 1807 and Wellington in 1830 and 1832. But now, they resign as party leaders first and then as PM once a successor is elected - May, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, Wilson, Macmillan, Eden all followed this pattern (clouded in Eden's case by the fact he was on sick leave at the time).
Anyway, I am off to bed. Have a nice evening.
Refreshing network settings gets it all back up and running and that just takes a few seconds, but the option to do it was buried behind settings instead of easily accessible at a click on Windows 10. If that's been removed from being easily accessible on Windows 11, it makes me wonder what else has been?
Both are essentially unknown the the wider public, and to some extent even to colleagues.
Shows what a massive shitberg there has been clogging up the party, that any number of putative front-runners are essentially not up to it.
A Wallace-Mordaunt battle would be an interesting bloodsport.
Wallace was a Remainer; Mordaunt a Leaver. Wallace is old school Tory; Mordaunt is “woke”. Wallace is a much admired Defence Sec; Mordaunt held the job for about five minutes. Wallace is “Scottish”, Mordaunt is from one the most Southern seats in the country.
Who might Gove choose?
How much might the ERGers trust Mordaunt?
Johnson is a pathological liar. Vain, arrogant, selfish, and utterly unsuitable for office.
But Trump actively encouraged an attempted coup in which people died and, had he and his mob been more competent, many would have died. Democracy was genuinely under threat from that man (and possibly still is).
Trump deserves to be behind bars. Johnson deserves to be out of office and, perhaps, a degree of pity.
That’s actually quite reassuring for those of us concerned about the voting intentions of Conservative members.
Someone engineered it that way.
The original meaning of the word spin was about rotation, but it in politics it means "lie"
The crazies and liars of the world misappropriate all sorts of stuff
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/1023/102306.htm
I'm not drawing an equivalence, but do watch out for hindsight.
The two scenarios couldn't be more different, thankfully.
Other than that, been a quiet couple of days, how are you?
You can take the coffee from my cold, dead hands.
I loathe Trump, and my criticisms of him could not be dismissed merely because I hate him, but equally I could occasionally be wrong about a specific thing, despite being right about him overall.
Im good ta, been playing me some goddam chess
I used my daughter's Windows laptop a few weeks back and it was a horrible experience. In so many ways the GUI had the feel of Windows XP with tarted up dialog boxes.
AND head FURTHER inland, to the flintlands.
Where the women are strong, the men are good looking AND the sheep are fleet of foot!
Do you think the stress of early parenting was an issue, or did the docs say this was already in the post?
The Tories are still losing leaders over sex scandals, and they are about to appoint a Scots non-entity.
For anybody who thinks Boris deserves a bit of pity or sympathy, I'd suggest that they ask themselves: "What if our positions were reversed? Would Boris display any sympathy or compassion for me"? Thought not.
Maybe not the Transylvania bit.
Seattle Times ($) - Former Theranos exec Ramesh Balwani convicted of fraud
His hand, yes.
I think some of his beliefs absurd, potentially offensive, and he was inept in expressing them - but it does not appear to have compromised his actions if this account is accurate.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennie-rigg/tim-farron-lgbt-record_b_16095906.html
Those who are assuming the sky will fall in should relax a little. But those who are wary are totally justified in their wariness. We already know Boris is the type to break rules, conventions and laws. So whatever our understanding is of leaving office, it cannot be predicated solely on him obeying rules, conventions, and laws. We must seek alternative sources of reassurance. I believe those sources are present.