Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
That is fundamentally untrue. The reality is that where minority groups are included in imagery, those who see people who look in some way similar to themselves feel more engaged. It has been well proven in marketing. Conversely people are less likely to engage if they see less representation. This may give a reason for why young people are generally less engaged. They see a whole load of boomers like Leon pontificating and they listen to their views and see nothing in common.
There we go, the 10-wicket defeat after only four hours. What a mess.
I was thinking about 50 over game in England. Most won't play any 50 over cricket at all these days (bar when they play a handful of games for England a year). Also, even the internationals, now they play so much T20 (and the likes of Stokes playing every variant) they are rested for them.
There is now only the 50 over cup, which is at the same time as the Hundred, so it is effectively a 2nd XI competition.
I think you write this game off as one of those things. It happens. If we had bowled first it could have been the other way around.
I don't think a lack of 50 over cricket explains why we lost the top and middle order so early.
Well yes it is certainly England plan that they go hard regardless and to some extent they are right....lets say they had lost the first 3-4 wickets quickly and nudged their way to 200-250, they still lose in modern ODI cricket.
However, my point was a wider one, 40/50 over cricket is all but dead in England now. The short form specialists play T10/T20/Hundred all around the world and play little to no 4 day cricket.
There used to be a Sunday 40 over league plus 1-2 50 over cups. None of those exist now.
Depends what one means by “can’t win”. They’re not getting Crimea, Luhansk or Donetsk back in a hurry, just as Cyprus isn’t getting Northern Cyprus back in a hurry, Korea isn’t getting North Korea back in a hurry, and the USA isn’t getting Loyalist North America back in a hurry.
Given the disparity in forces, and how things began, restricting losses would be a win for them. Not as much a win as we all hope of course.
Russia's in deep sh*t in this war. If (as has been alleged) they have started emptying prisons to get soldiers - they're desperate. Despite what Dirty Dozen-style films say, they will not make good soldiers.
I’m happy to confirm that I’ve been nominated by my colleagues to stand for the leadership. I’m conscious of the honour they’ve done me and I look forward to the first ballot tomorrow.
Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
That is fundamentally untrue. The reality is that where minority groups are included in imagery, those who see people who look in some way similar to themselves feel more engaged. It has been well proven in marketing. Conversely people are less likely to engage if they see less representation. This may give a reason for why young people are generally less engaged. They see a whole load of boomers like Leon pontificating and they listen to their views and see nothing in common.
I don't think your point about engagement is contrary to the point raised. Engagement through visibility is important and effective. But the individual politician does not represent everyone of their particular skin colour or religion, and should not be judged on the basis they are not a good representation of that race or religion. The 'X does not represent me' retort can be true, but irrelevant, as why should they be expected to be? The fact of diverse representation is good, does not speak to judging the person involved.
Depends what one means by “can’t win”. They’re not getting Crimea, Luhansk or Donetsk back in a hurry, just as Cyprus isn’t getting Northern Cyprus back in a hurry, Korea isn’t getting North Korea back in a hurry, and the USA isn’t getting Loyalist North America back in a hurry.
Given the disparity in forces, and how things began, restricting losses would be a win for them. Not as much a win as we all hope of course.
Russia's in deep sh*t in this war. If (as has been alleged) they have started emptying prisons to get soldiers - they're desperate. Despite what Dirty Dozen-style films say, they will not make good soldiers.
Yes but ex-cons were responsible for many war crimes in the Balkans IIRC. Maybe this is what Putin hopes for.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
The VONC wording is entirely in order, and BoZo is frit
He doesn't think he would win. He might be right.
LotO has the opportunity to respond with the usual form of words, and the government will of course allocate a day for the debate.
It is "in order" in the technical sense that the Commons could debate it. However, it doesn't fulfil the requirements for it to take precedence over all other business, so it will stay on the order paper un-debated.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
Even after an investigation leading to seven men being jailed for child sex crimes West Mercia Police and Telford & Wrekin Council scaled down their specialist teams "to virtual zero" in order to save money
Just watched a bit of Badenoch's press launch. She is VERY assured, and quite winning
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
That is fundamentally untrue. The reality is that where minority groups are included in imagery, those who see people who look in some way similar to themselves feel more engaged. It has been well proven in marketing. Conversely people are less likely to engage if they see less representation. This may give a reason for why young people are generally less engaged. They see a whole load of boomers like Leon pontificating and they listen to their views and see nothing in common.
I don't think your point about engagement is contrary to the point raised. Engagement through visibility is important and effective. But the individual politician does not represent everyone of their particular skin colour or religion, and should not be judged on the basis they are not a good representation of that race or religion.
Isn't that a "no shit Sherlock" point of debate though? Fucking journos will write anything if they think it makes a controversial headline.
The VONC wording is entirely in order, and BoZo is frit
He doesn't think he would win. He might be right.
LotO has the opportunity to respond with the usual form of words, and the government will of course allocate a day for the debate.
It is "in order" in the technical sense that the Commons could debate it. However, it doesn't fulfil the requirements for it to take precedence over all other business, so it will stay on the order paper un-debated.
Just watched a bit of Badenoch's press launch. She is VERY assured, and quite winning
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
I think electing people for lolz has been done already.
Just watched a bit of Badenoch's press launch. She is VERY assured, and quite winning
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
I can only imagine the knots kimono fox killer would tie himself in with his tweets.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Just watched a bit of Badenoch's press launch. She is VERY assured, and quite winning
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
Government by owning the libs seems to be the main ambition of a significant portion of the right, anyone listening should understand it shows a complete lack of confidence in any actual agenda for change.
Just watched a bit of Badenoch's press launch. She is VERY assured, and quite winning
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
Nah. I want an atheist security hawk in charge, so they may show a proper level of interest in interrogating UAP.
I was reading some info about these images earlier. Just mind blowing.
Perhaps the most important piccie was the most boring one: the chart showing the atmospheric composition of an exoplanet. I *think* it's been done before (from memory), but the JWST offers the potential of much more detail.
Imagine if we start seeing odd chemicals in atmosphere in an Earth-like planet, than on Earth are only produced by life. Or even industrial-level intelligent life...
Without coming over too Leonesque I'm certain we're eventually going to find the universe is actually teeming with "life" though it may not necessarily be "life" as we know it...
My own view is that it is infeasible that we are the only place where life has developed. It is exceptionalism of the most ridiculous kind. I also reckon we'll find live - whether independently-started or commonly seeded with Earth - elsewhere in the solar system.
The Fermi Paradox can just go and sit in the corner.
This argument misses out something standing in plain sight.
If the creation of life, with the simultaneous capacity to replicate and evolve/develop, is common in the universe because there is nothing especially special about it, then the place to look is the fertile ground of our own planet.
We know that life has on one occasion begun to evolve in complex ways to enable us to arise. We therefore know that it is a good place to look, ex hypothesi.
So, instead of speculating about stuff trillions of miles away, we should look for evidence that it has started more than onceright here. If life is common it is a racing certainty.
If there is no such evidence, we should think twice before assuming about other parts of the cosmos.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
I have this funny feeling we will get one day of headlines and then never to be mentioned again by the likes of the BBC.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
Jesus Christ
One excerpt
"The report references the case of Lucy Lowe,16, who died along with her 17-year-old sister,and mother in a house fire started by Azhar Ali Mehmood, 26, the father of her daughter. She had become pregnant at 14 to Mehmood.
"The report continued to say children were often abused in nightclubs and takeaways with witnesses also describing a "rape house" in Wellington, Telford, to which young people were taken,"
Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
That is fundamentally untrue. The reality is that where minority groups are included in imagery, those who see people who look in some way similar to themselves feel more engaged. It has been well proven in marketing. Conversely people are less likely to engage if they see less representation. This may give a reason for why young people are generally less engaged. They see a whole load of boomers like Leon pontificating and they listen to their views and see nothing in common.
I don't think your point about engagement is contrary to the point raised. Engagement through visibility is important and effective. But the individual politician does not represent everyone of their particular skin colour or religion, and should not be judged on the basis they are not a good representation of that race or religion.
Isn't that a "no shit Sherlock" point of debate though? Fucking journos will write anything if they think it makes a controversial headline.
No it isn't. Politicians are able to point to many examples where they have received comment along such lines. I think it does need to be said even though it seems obvious.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
That is fundamentally untrue. The reality is that where minority groups are included in imagery, those who see people who look in some way similar to themselves feel more engaged. It has been well proven in marketing. Conversely people are less likely to engage if they see less representation. This may give a reason for why young people are generally less engaged. They see a whole load of boomers like Leon pontificating and they listen to their views and see nothing in common.
I don't think your point about engagement is contrary to the point raised. Engagement through visibility is important and effective. But the individual politician does not represent everyone of their particular skin colour or religion, and should not be judged on the basis they are not a good representation of that race or religion.
Isn't that a "no shit Sherlock" point of debate though? Fucking journos will write anything if they think it makes a controversial headline.
No it isn't. Politicians are able to point to many examples where they have received comment along such lines. I think it does need to be said even though it seems obvious.
makes me think of the scene in The Life of Brian where the crowd all parrot (in unison) "we are all individuals" and one bloke nervously puts up his hand and says "er..I' m not!"
The fact that people are getting overexcited about catapulting candidates with practically zero experience into running the country for the next 2 very difficult years is testament to how lightweight and uninspiring Johnson's government has been. None of the so-called big beasts are generating much enthusiasm. I can quite see why the MPs held off for as long as they could before despatching Boris to the knackers yard.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
Silly piece, basically saying sunak etc can't really be Indian etc becos eevul Tories, just as Thatcher was not a woman. Everyone represents just themselves is also a pretty thick claim to be making when discussing elected MPs
The “represents everyone” argument is just putting a brave face on the problem that those Evul Tories have a nasty tendency to be non-white and female.
If it was a row of middle aged men as candidates, that argument wouldn’t be made about them…
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
I have this funny feeling we will get one day of headlines and then never to be mentioned again by the likes of the BBC.
If 1000+ girls were abused in Telford, and 1800+ in Rotherham (IIRC), and four figures in Oldham, then Sarah Champion's figure of "maybe a million" abused girls, victim of these gangs, across the UK - starts to hove into view. I thought it was insane when I first read it
But now?
I still don't buy a million. But over 100,000 seems totally plausible, indeed likely. It is the single greatest UK scandal of our lifetimes. Perhaps indeed in the history of the UK
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
Ok, so instead of whining put down a motion “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and get it debated then.
Honestly this is ridiculous.
Yeah, this. Or they could go even go “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs." if they wanted to personalise it and stay clearly within precedent.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
Ok, so instead of whining put down a motion “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and get it debated then.
Honestly this is ridiculous.
It's either ridiculous or clever (or a ridiculous attempt to be clever)- they know what the outcome would be, so don't even care about holding a vote, but looking like being prevented from holding a vote allows for more righteous indignation.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
I have this funny feeling we will get one day of headlines and then never to be mentioned again by the likes of the BBC.
If 1000+ girls were abused in Telford, and 1800+ in Rotherham (IIRC), and four figures in Oldham, then Sarah Champion's figure of "maybe a million" abused girls, victim of these gangs, across the UK - starts to hove into view. I thought it was insane when I first read it
But now?
I still don't buy a million. But over 100,000 seems totally plausible, indeed likely. It is the single greatest UK scandal of our lifetimes. Perhaps indeed in the history of the UK
You know this is going nowhere.
Too many people in authority have too much to lose plus it would leave many - particularly in certain parts of the media - as looking stupid at best when it came to the initial reporting of these scandals.
"I saw references to exploitation being 'generational'; having come to be regarded as 'normal' by perpetrators and inevitable by victims and survivors some of whose parents had been through similar experiences," he said.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
Ok, so instead of whining put down a motion “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and get it debated then.
Honestly this is ridiculous.
It's either ridiculous or clever (or a ridiculous attempt to be clever)- they know what the outcome would be, so don't even care about holding a vote, but looking like being prevented from holding a vote allows for more righteous indignation.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)...
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
One might conclude that Labour were keener to trend on Twitter by having the government block an incorrectly-worded motion than to actually debate it on the floor of the House. That they were able to find a Tory motion from the sixties - though not, you'll note, one that is conditional on the presence of a specific individual as Prime Minister, and is consequently silent as to whether the House would have confidence in the Government if that individual was gone - suggests they did at least some cursory research into what a vote of no confidence looks like.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
I have this funny feeling we will get one day of headlines and then never to be mentioned again by the likes of the BBC.
If 1000+ girls were abused in Telford, and 1800+ in Rotherham (IIRC), and four figures in Oldham, then Sarah Champion's figure of "maybe a million" abused girls, victim of these gangs, across the UK - starts to hove into view. I thought it was insane when I first read it
But now?
I still don't buy a million. But over 100,000 seems totally plausible, indeed likely. It is the single greatest UK scandal of our lifetimes. Perhaps indeed in the history of the UK
It’s insane. Grim. Inexplicable. Is there a definitive book on this? I tend to avoid media reporting on such as I don’t want to get angry and sad.
I was reading some info about these images earlier. Just mind blowing.
Perhaps the most important piccie was the most boring one: the chart showing the atmospheric composition of an exoplanet. I *think* it's been done before (from memory), but the JWST offers the potential of much more detail.
Imagine if we start seeing odd chemicals in atmosphere in an Earth-like planet, than on Earth are only produced by life. Or even industrial-level intelligent life...
Without coming over too Leonesque I'm certain we're eventually going to find the universe is actually teeming with "life" though it may not necessarily be "life" as we know it...
My own view is that it is infeasible that we are the only place where life has developed. It is exceptionalism of the most ridiculous kind. I also reckon we'll find live - whether independently-started or commonly seeded with Earth - elsewhere in the solar system.
The Fermi Paradox can just go and sit in the corner.
This argument misses out something standing in plain sight.
If the creation of life, with the simultaneous capacity to replicate and evolve/develop, is common in the universe because there is nothing especially special about it, then the place to look is the fertile ground of our own planet.
We know that life has on one occasion begun to evolve in complex ways to enable us to arise. We therefore know that it is a good place to look, ex hypothesi.
So, instead of speculating about stuff trillions of miles away, we should look for evidence that it has started more than onceright here. If life is common it is a racing certainty.
If there is no such evidence, we should think twice before assuming about other parts of the cosmos.
This has been talked about alot over the years, and the problem is that there is very little extant evidence of the earliest days of life on Earth - geological processes have destroyed most of it. But there are so many questions - e.g. the chirality of life on Earth. Why are our amino acids left-handed and not right-handed?
Early life is really, really hard to find in the fossil record. Because they were small and did not preserve well, and the fact that geological processes have had billions of years to churn them up.
This is getting stupid now. This is self-evidently not the same as Labour's current wording. Starmer's making himself ridiculous trying to justify this game-playing.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
I have this funny feeling we will get one day of headlines and then never to be mentioned again by the likes of the BBC.
If 1000+ girls were abused in Telford, and 1800+ in Rotherham (IIRC), and four figures in Oldham, then Sarah Champion's figure of "maybe a million" abused girls, victim of these gangs, across the UK - starts to hove into view. I thought it was insane when I first read it
But now?
I still don't buy a million. But over 100,000 seems totally plausible, indeed likely. It is the single greatest UK scandal of our lifetimes. Perhaps indeed in the history of the UK
It doesn’t really seem appropriate to give that a ‘like’ - yes, six figures does now seem plausible.
Bryant: "Its simple - he's disgraced, he doesn't enjoy the confidence of this House. If he simply tries to prevent the House coming to that decision, it's because he's a coward!" https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1546891812132077569
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
Depressingly.
I feel like we need one of those satirical Onion style reports on gun massacres that is repeated every time another one happens.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
Ok, so instead of whining put down a motion “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and get it debated then.
Honestly this is ridiculous.
It's either ridiculous or clever (or a ridiculous attempt to be clever)- they know what the outcome would be, so don't even care about holding a vote, but looking like being prevented from holding a vote allows for more righteous indignation.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
I have this funny feeling we will get one day of headlines and then never to be mentioned again by the likes of the BBC.
If 1000+ girls were abused in Telford, and 1800+ in Rotherham (IIRC), and four figures in Oldham, then Sarah Champion's figure of "maybe a million" abused girls, victim of these gangs, across the UK - starts to hove into view. I thought it was insane when I first read it
But now?
I still don't buy a million. But over 100,000 seems totally plausible, indeed likely. It is the single greatest UK scandal of our lifetimes. Perhaps indeed in the history of the UK
They can retable it as a standard VONC and they will get the debate.
Starmer is being very badly advised.
They tried to be too clever and failed.
Labour (and Starmer) are fcuking about. Table a standard VONC in the government and it will get debated and voted on.
But they're trying to be clever and will achieve nothing. You'd think SOMEONE in Labour would understand Parliamentary rules. I mean, the bloody speaker is ex-Labour. Can't he tell them what to do?
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
I have this funny feeling we will get one day of headlines and then never to be mentioned again by the likes of the BBC.
If 1000+ girls were abused in Telford, and 1800+ in Rotherham (IIRC), and four figures in Oldham, then Sarah Champion's figure of "maybe a million" abused girls, victim of these gangs, across the UK - starts to hove into view. I thought it was insane when I first read it
But now?
I still don't buy a million. But over 100,000 seems totally plausible, indeed likely. It is the single greatest UK scandal of our lifetimes. Perhaps indeed in the history of the UK
You know this is going nowhere.
Too many people in authority have too much to lose plus it would leave many - particularly in certain parts of the media - as looking stupid at best when it came to the initial reporting of these scandals.
Nothing is ever going to be done.
But something REALLY needs to be done, because this:
"The report said, in the most recent figures from the first six months of 2020, police received 172 referrals related to child exploitation.
The "dreadful, life altering crime has not gone away - in Telford or elsewhere," the report said."
It is STILL HAPPENING
I've heard this anecdotally, the exact same abuse is happening, with the exact same ethnic and social pattern, right now
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
Even after an investigation leading to seven men being jailed for child sex crimes West Mercia Police and Telford & Wrekin Council scaled down their specialist teams "to virtual zero" in order to save money
Nothing to see, quickly move on....
Which party, if any, had political control of the council at that point, out of interest?
I see 'old fashioned' and 'traditionalist' Rees-Mogg has been opining once again about how it is unjst to deny the PM a chance to be in the contest, alongside his belief in the personal mandate of Boris.
I get he is archaic in mannerisms, but he is actually one of the most radical Tories out there, traditionalists should be very worried by someone who does not care what the rules are on anything. He is a Boris fan, not a traditionalist.
Christ, even Guido notes this is in line with the contest rules.
I suspect Rees-Mogg is very traditionalist, in the sense that the upper-crust get so say how things function and the rest can just lump it.
Poor old Rees-Mogg. He knows full well that the genuine upper crust think he is very vulgar. For a start, genuinely posh people with double barrelled names have no hyphen. Who would like to tell him?
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
Immediately after May stood down as Home Sec and again, after she stood down as PM, there emails being sent in the system calling for a more “sensitive approach” to the prosecution of such crimes.
May apparently implemented the “crude” approach of pursuing prosecution of everyone for whom there was evidence of them committing rape.
Yes they do. They require the government to fall and, given that the opposition would be unlikely to command confidence then HMQ must dissolve and put it back to the electorate VONC are in the government, not the PM (and hence cant have conditionals shoe horned in)
The VONC wording is entirely in order, and BoZo is frit
He doesn't think he would win. He might be right.
LotO has the opportunity to respond with the usual form of words, and the government will of course allocate a day for the debate.
It is "in order" in the technical sense that the Commons could debate it. However, it doesn't fulfil the requirements for it to take precedence over all other business, so it will stay on the order paper un-debated.
It seems to me that it has already fulfilled a useful purpose in eliciting the response from the Johnson government.
The concern has been (for both Tory rebels and other parties) that Johnson remains as Prime Minister. This gives him the opportunity to try to find ways of staying on in power as long as possible. No doubt he is plotting to do so (though he will have to better than the JRM suggestion that he be allowed to enter the leadership race).
The response to the VONC gives "the Prime Minister has already resigned" as the reason for not debating it. This isn't true, but it is a statement that could be used as ammunition against any attempt to stay in power beyond the beginning of September.
Bryant: "Its simple - he's disgraced, he doesn't enjoy the confidence of this House. If he simply tries to prevent the House coming to that decision, it's because he's a coward!" https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1546891812132077569
Yeah but he has effectively resigned already. It is the stupid selection process of the Tories that is causing the very long delay, but that is not particularly his fault or anything new.
Labour should just let the Tories attack each other over the next couple of weeks. No need to say or do much at all.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
Ok, so instead of whining put down a motion “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and get it debated then.
Honestly this is ridiculous.
It's either ridiculous or clever (or a ridiculous attempt to be clever)- they know what the outcome would be, so don't even care about holding a vote, but looking like being prevented from holding a vote allows for more righteous indignation.
Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
Everyone represents just themselves is also a pretty thick claim to be making when discussing elected MPs
I think that is a rather silly point, since 'represents' means different things in different contexts. You cannot honestly think he's so thick he doesn't know MPs represent constituents. It's a case of whether people are accused of (or expected to be) in some way represent a block of people, many of whom they do not represent electorally, based on their personal characteristics.
Just watched a bit of Badenoch's press launch. She is VERY assured, and quite winning
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
She's agnostic – not Christian. She is married to an Irish catholic however.
Yes they do. They require the government to fall and, given that the opposition would be unlikely to command confidence then HMQ must dissolve and put it back to the electorate VONC are in the government, not the PM
The VONC would be in the government but in the current circumstances, it is known that no later than 5th September there will be a new Prime Minister who can put together a new government which will command the confidence of the House.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
Immediately after May stood down as Home Sec and again, after she stood down as PM, there emails being sent in the system calling for a more “sensitive approach” to the prosecution of such crimes.
May apparently implemented the “crude” approach of pursuing prosecution of everyone for whom there was evidence of them committing rape.
If there is evidence of someone committing rape, then put it before a jury and let them decide.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
Ok, so instead of whining put down a motion “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and get it debated then.
Honestly this is ridiculous.
It's either ridiculous or clever (or a ridiculous attempt to be clever)- they know what the outcome would be, so don't even care about holding a vote, but looking like being prevented from holding a vote allows for more righteous indignation.
A ridiculous attempt to be clever works for me.
Prize prats.
Starmer once against showing how crap a politician he is. He should’ve have asked for a parliamentary VONC at the peak of Partygate and made every Tory look pathetic with their Sue Gray bullshit. And then again after he was fined.
Doing it now makes him look a mug. The country has already moved on from Boris Johnson. He’s simply the other side of the Rees Mogg coin. He can’t move on because there’s nothing to him other than Not Being Boris. Sad man. A shame for Labour that plod didn’t send him packing too and we might have got a new worthwhile leader of Labour while we were at it.
The VONC wording is entirely in order, and BoZo is frit
He doesn't think he would win. He might be right.
LotO has the opportunity to respond with the usual form of words, and the government will of course allocate a day for the debate.
It is "in order" in the technical sense that the Commons could debate it. However, it doesn't fulfil the requirements for it to take precedence over all other business, so it will stay on the order paper un-debated.
It seems to me that it has already fulfilled a useful purpose in eliciting the response from the Johnson government.
The concern has been (for both Tory rebels and other parties) that Johnson remains as Prime Minister. This gives him the opportunity to try to find ways of staying on in power as long as possible. No doubt he is plotting to do so (though he will have to better than the JRM suggestion that he be allowed to enter the leadership race).
The response to the VONC gives "the Prime Minister has already resigned" as the reason for not debating it. This isn't true, but it is a statement that could be used as ammunition against any attempt to stay in power beyond the beginning of September.
The suggestion that he would try to stay in office beyond 5th September is utterly paranoid. And the people suggesting it were saying just a week or two ago that he would never resign without a successful VONC first.
Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
Everyone represents just themselves is also a pretty thick claim to be making when discussing elected MPs
I think that is a rather silly point, since 'represents' means different things in different contexts. You cannot honestly think he's so thick he doesn't know MPs represent constituents. It's a case of whether people are accused of (or expected to be) in some way represent a block of people, many of whom they do not represent electorally, based on their personal characteristics.
But as a philosophical point it is also thick. Is he saying there are no universals, or that the common view that a fat person is a representative of the class of fat people is mistaken, or what?
Whilst the Tories might be inclined to be complacent thanks to just how diverse the leadership race (of declared candidates at least) was, it does seem fair that commentators have been noting the implications. I liked Sunny Hundal's take.
Most importantly, I challenge the idea of "representation" entirely.
The idea a very diverse group of people from a minority can be "represented" by a few who share their skin colour or religion is wrong.
It restricts our own diversity. Everyone represents just themselves.
Everyone represents just themselves is also a pretty thick claim to be making when discussing elected MPs
I think that is a rather silly point, since 'represents' means different things in different contexts. You cannot honestly think he's so thick he doesn't know MPs represent constituents. It's a case of whether people are accused of (or expected to be) in some way represent a block of people, many of whom they do not represent electorally, based on their personal characteristics.
But as a philosophical point it is also thick. Is he saying there are no universals, or that the common view that a fat person is a representative of the class of fat people is mistaken, or what?
I think he's saying on this one people push it beyond what is reasonable.
Look, I think Labour are perfectly entitled to call a confidence debate. I think if that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. I think it’s Westminster tittle-tattle but if the Labour Party thinks it can derive political advantage by forcing the Tories to vote confidence in the government then that is their prerogative. Personally I don’t think people will give two hoots on who voted what in a symbolic vote in July 2022 by the time the next election rolls round, but thats up to them.
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.
Comments
However, my point was a wider one, 40/50 over cricket is all but dead in England now. The short form specialists play T10/T20/Hundred all around the world and play little to no 4 day cricket.
There used to be a Sunday 40 over league plus 1-2 50 over cups. None of those exist now.
He doesn't think he would win. He might be right.
Help me get this party back on track.
#Suella4Leader https://suella4leader.com
https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1546885647553667078
Is Britain ready for a good looking prime minister?
https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1546887330425888768
Is Tim okay? Rishi good looking wut
Just asking for a chap of modest means with a Lady of substantial retail aspirations ..
Corbyn tried a similar tactic and that wasn't debated.
All Starmer needs do is retable the motion in the standard form and he will get his 6 hours of venting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-61983584
Sounds familiar?
Nothing to see, quickly move on....
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
If the creation of life, with the simultaneous capacity to replicate and evolve/develop, is common in the universe because there is nothing especially special about it, then the place to look is the fertile ground of our own planet.
We know that life has on one occasion begun to evolve in complex ways to enable us to arise. We therefore know that it is a good place to look, ex hypothesi.
So, instead of speculating about stuff trillions of miles away, we should look for evidence that it has started more than onceright here. If life is common it is a racing certainty.
If there is no such evidence, we should think twice before assuming about other parts of the cosmos.
One excerpt
"The report references the case of Lucy Lowe,16, who died along with her 17-year-old sister,and mother in a house fire started by Azhar Ali Mehmood, 26, the father of her daughter. She had become pregnant at 14 to Mehmood.
"The report continued to say children were often abused in nightclubs and takeaways with witnesses also describing a "rape house" in Wellington, Telford, to which young people were taken,"
Those responsible ought to be held to account, if they're still alive.
It's not just Andrea Jenkyns that's giving you the finger.
She so clearly reflects their opinion of the British people. https://twitter.com/alexgallagher2/status/1546890224336248833/photo/1
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965:
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament.
This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/1546888774575042560
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LWAtN1WfDpc
Honestly this is ridiculous.
If it was a row of middle aged men as candidates, that argument wouldn’t be made about them…
It is the conditional nature of the motion that means it does not meet the required threshold.
Labour knows what it has to do to get this debate. But they seem unwilling to do so.
Explain why that might be...
But now?
I still don't buy a million. But over 100,000 seems totally plausible, indeed likely. It is the single greatest UK scandal of our lifetimes. Perhaps indeed in the history of the UK
Too many people in authority have too much to lose plus it would leave many - particularly in certain parts of the media - as looking stupid at best when it came to the initial reporting of these scandals.
Nothing is ever going to be done.
"I saw references to exploitation being 'generational'; having come to be regarded as 'normal' by perpetrators and inevitable by victims and survivors some of whose parents had been through similar experiences," he said.
Is there a definitive book on this? I tend to avoid media reporting on such as I don’t want to get angry and sad.
Early life is really, really hard to find in the fossil record. Because they were small and did not preserve well, and the fact that geological processes have had billions of years to churn them up.
It's a great point though.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1546891515292696576
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1546891812132077569
Prize prats.
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/grooming-survivor-says-police-interrogated-her-at-doorstep-to-scare-her-into-silence-after-gb-news-interview/336140
But they're trying to be clever and will achieve nothing.
You'd think SOMEONE in Labour would understand Parliamentary rules. I mean, the bloody speaker is ex-Labour. Can't he tell them what to do?
"The report said, in the most recent figures from the first six months of 2020, police received 172 referrals related to child exploitation.
The "dreadful, life altering crime has not gone away - in Telford or elsewhere," the report said."
It is STILL HAPPENING
I've heard this anecdotally, the exact same abuse is happening, with the exact same ethnic and social pattern, right now
Lord Clement-Jones
@Baronessjenkin
@BaronessDeech
@LordPhilofBrum
@KemiBadenoch
@joannaccherry
@sharrond62
@MForstater
@TrevorPTweets
@andrewdoyle_com
https://twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1546890889724940288
Yes, this is what politics looks like FFS
May apparently implemented the “crude” approach of pursuing prosecution of everyone for whom there was evidence of them committing rape.
VONC are in the government, not the PM (and hence cant have conditionals shoe horned in)
The concern has been (for both Tory rebels and other parties) that Johnson remains as Prime Minister. This gives him the opportunity to try to find ways of staying on in power as long as possible. No doubt he is plotting to do so (though he will have to better than the JRM suggestion that he be allowed to enter the leadership race).
The response to the VONC gives "the Prime Minister has already resigned" as the reason for not debating it. This isn't true, but it is a statement that could be used as ammunition against any attempt to stay in power beyond the beginning of September.
Braverman 44%
Javid 36%
Tugendhat 31%
Shapps 29%
Sunak 24%
Badenoch 22%
Mordaunt 15%
Truss 15%
Zahawi 13%
Hunt 11%
Redfield & Wilton, July 11
Labour should just let the Tories attack each other over the next couple of weeks. No need to say or do much at all.
https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
This row is just a confected game, neither side are talking honestly about what is going on, so a perfect opportunity for bothsidesism.
Doing it now makes him look a mug. The country has already moved on from Boris Johnson. He’s simply the other side of the Rees Mogg coin. He can’t move on because there’s nothing to him other than Not Being Boris. Sad man. A shame for Labour that plod didn’t send him packing too and we might have got a new worthwhile leader of Labour while we were at it.
Outside of your bubble it is squeezed out of the bandwidth by the contest for succession which is utterly consuming the media
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.