There is a brilliant photo of Lady Thatcher on front of tomorrows Express. Whereas the Telegraph seem to have a photo from a used car salesman training seminar.
It think it evident Mail and Express are firmly behind Truss, the Telegraph can’t make up its mind.
But it all shows Labour stance is tear down statues they don’t like, but put up statues of divisive figures they do like, even on the same plinth, doesn’t it?
Change all the statues after election win in much same way change head of BBC or appoint your own BoE chief once in power?
The trouble with new statues is it is usually obvious the statue looks nothing like its subject, whereas for some 18th Century general, we are none the wiser.
I present to you a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest:
For those who think Wokery is not a thing...go to London Waterloo station at the moment.
As a man, you will be lectured by EE through giant billboards all over the station on sexist hate in women's football. "EE Hope United will highlight the role of men to act as an ally to women during the Euros, encouraging them to own and challenge the problem of sexist abuse online and elsewhere: as the central perpetrators, online sexist hate is a man’s issue to solve as the campaign leads with the statement ‘Not Her Problem’".
You'd have thought they'd have learned from Gillette, wouldn't you?
I went through Waterloo today, couldn't give a toss as my train was half an hour delayed and it cost be £40 regardless. Perhaps the Government should look at that
RedfieldWilton finds Conservative voteshare down 3% in the redwall seats since Boris resigned, RefUK vote more than doubled from 3% to 7%. Labour voteshare unchanged
But it all shows Labour stance is tear down statues they don’t like, but put up statues of divisive figures they do like, even on the same plinth, doesn’t it?
Change all the statues after election win in much same way change head of BBC or appoint your own BoE chief once in power?
The trouble with new statues is it is usually obvious the statue looks nothing like its subject, whereas for some 18th Century general, we are none the wiser.
I present to you a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest:
We’ve already had this one. This one was voted worst statue ever, whilst I replied I kind of liked it. 🙃
Can someone explain to me why BlowJo has overturned the Erskine May convention and is refusing parliamentary time to debate a confidence motion he would win?
It has already been explained many times
Starmer tabled a motion that contained conditional language. That, as laid out by the library of the House, does not meet the threshold necessary to be granted a debate.
It was a valid motion but not worded in such a way as to trigger a debate as per the convention. (This also happened in 2018 when a Corbyn motion was not debated)
The government informed Starmer that all he needed to do was table a motion using the standard language and a debate would be granted without question.
No such motion has yet to be tabled.
Starmer, as a lawyer, should understand the need for the right form of language.
It's only the government's opinion that the right form of language has not been used.
If the government can decide whether or not to allow a given confidence motion, we are in murky territory.
Backed up by the opinion of the Library of the House who know more about this than any of us here. And I do trust them.
The solution is very simple. Starmer tables the standard motion and he gets the debate
I don't understand why he isn't doing just that.
In 1965 Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Con) was allowed this form of words "That this House deplores the hasty and ill-considered actions of Her Majesty's Government during their first hundred days of office and has no confidence in their ability to conduct the nation's affairs."
In 1972 Peter Shore (Lab ) was allowed this form of words "That this House condemns the action of Her Majesty's Government in framing its European Communities Bill with the intention of removing the possibility of substantial amendment; and considers this to be a gross breach of faith in the light of undertakings previously given that the Bill and the Treaties could be fully discussed."
There is no standard form of words that has to be used.
So they'll have to produce the data on bots to prove he had no right to withdraw ftom the offer. Thickos.
Elon Musk didn't pull out of buying Twitter because of bots, he pulled out because Tesla stock has lost almost half its value, and that meant he'd have to pledge very large amounts of it to his bankers.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
I don't disagree with your point.
But.
The accession of a new country to the EU requires a Treaty signed by every member of the EU and the accession country. (The EU itself is not a signatory.)
Given that the UK had been one of the - if not the - biggest cheerleader for Turkish accession, it would have been pretty awkward for us to veto it at the last. But it is simply incorrect to say that the UK (or Cyprus or Luxembourg) did not have a veto on Turkey joining the EU.
Good job the French didn’t have a veto on us, or we would never have got in in the first place 😧
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken.
Wow, suddenly pointing out that Greensill Dave was a lying, smarmy, duplicitous bastard makes you a bad person, does it?
I don't get this at all. If her point is true (and it is not denied) that the fop had given an undertaking not to veto, it was grossly misleading of him to say We have a veto and not follow up with Though admittedly I personally am estopped from exercising it, and my successors might also be embarrassed by my undertaking. Leave was wrong and dishonest, but let's not forget the appalling patronising dishonesty emanating from the remainariat at all times in general, and over Turkey in particular.
Uncharacteristically obtuse from you. I criticised Cameron’s disingenuity upthread, but the issue is whether Penny was correct or not.
She was incorrect (and possibly lying) then, she must certainly be lying now as she has been asked about it many times subsequently.
I took that clip as conceding a de jure veto, but saying de facto unexerciseable. which comes to the same thing as, no veto. This is a quibble.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
Can someone explain to me why BlowJo has overturned the Erskine May convention and is refusing parliamentary time to debate a confidence motion he would win?
It has already been explained many times
Starmer tabled a motion that contained conditional language. That, as laid out by the library of the House, does not meet the threshold necessary to be granted a debate.
It was a valid motion but not worded in such a way as to trigger a debate as per the convention. (This also happened in 2018 when a Corbyn motion was not debated)
The government informed Starmer that all he needed to do was table a motion using the standard language and a debate would be granted without question.
No such motion has yet to be tabled.
Starmer, as a lawyer, should understand the need for the right form of language.
It's only the government's opinion that the right form of language has not been used.
If the government can decide whether or not to allow a given confidence motion, we are in murky territory.
Backed up by the opinion of the Library of the House who know more about this than any of us here. And I do trust them.
The solution is very simple. Starmer tables the standard motion and he gets the debate
I don't understand why he isn't doing just that.
In 1965 Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Con) was allowed this form of words "That this House deplores the hasty and ill-considered actions of Her Majesty's Government during their first hundred days of office and has no confidence in their ability to conduct the nation's affairs."
In 1972 Peter Shore (Lab ) was allowed this form of words "That this House condemns the action of Her Majesty's Government in framing its European Communities Bill with the intention of removing the possibility of substantial amendment; and considers this to be a gross breach of faith in the light of undertakings previously given that the Bill and the Treaties could be fully discussed."
There is no standard form of words that has to be used.
No conditional clauses attached to either of those. Labour are trying to amend a VONC so it applies solely to the current PM. Thats not what a VONC is.
Truss drifting a bit - not sure why - maybe punters taking note of Jack W's forecast?
Tugendhat has drifted an awful lot, and after he comfortably qualified as well - which is odd. Particularly before round one.
Why didn't he do so earlier?
Tugendhat votes transferring to Mordaunt would not be a surprise
If Tugendhat gets 3rd tomorrow he likely stays until the final ballots.
If he does as I said earlier Sunak likely lends MPs to Tugendhat to knock out Truss and Mordaunt so his opponent is Tugendhat not them in the membership vote
Here's an interesting stat every time you hear about the cost of living crisis:
In 2020 (albeit before the cost of living crisis) the average household spent over £5,000 per year on restaurants, hotels, recreation and culture.
That's a lot of money on non-essentials that could be cut out if you really have to. Not saying anybody would want to - and life wouldn't be great without any of that - but even so a lot of scope for making savings if you really have to.
You have to be careful with an average, is that the mean or the median? What is the figure for the 25th percentile? I think there's probably quite a lot of people with much less room to manoeuvre.
Also, while it's true that these are not essential in the way that food is, giving them up entirely would be very difficult. A lot of this expenditure is very important to people in terms of family - over the last year we've spent money in that category visiting my daughter in Bath, visiting family in London, attending a family wedding in Ireland.
Giving up a holiday, or trips to the cinema, is one thing, but not being able to afford to see family or take part in major family life events is quite another.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
So they'll have to produce the data on bots to prove he had no right to withdraw ftom the offer. Thickos.
Elon Musk didn't pull out of buying Twitter because of bots, he pulled out because Tesla stock has lost almost half its value, and that meant he'd have to pledge very large amounts of it to his bankers.
The people trying to make out Musk is a super genius playing 12-d chess rather rather an impulsive shit talker with a habit of pretending to buy companies have rather too much of their own self worth wrapped up in the Cult of Musk.
Musk's withdrawl letter was risible, the onus is not on Twitter to show numbers about bots, it is on Musk to prove there is a latent, hitherto undiscovered, Material Adverse Affect that gets him out of the deal.
He literally stated one of the reasons he was buying the company was to fix "the bot problem"
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
I don't disagree with your point.
But.
The accession of a new country to the EU requires a Treaty signed by every member of the EU and the accession country. (The EU itself is not a signatory.)
Given that the UK had been one of the - if not the - biggest cheerleader for Turkish accession, it would have been pretty awkward for us to veto it at the last. But it is simply incorrect to say that the UK (or Cyprus or Luxembourg) did not have a veto on Turkey joining the EU.
I don't disagree that the statement 'The UK doesn't have a veto on Turkey joining the EU' is incorrect. I would imagine the direct quote was worded slightly differently - or perhaps it wasn't.
I also don't disagree with Penny that had Cameron given his personal assurance that Turkey would not be vetoed, him making a meal of the British veto was disingenuous.
It is extremely hard to convey to an electorate the nuances of national Governments' role in the implementation of EU laws and regulations. In many cases 'the EU is making us do this' is, in actuality, a lie. But it's the closest proxy to the truth, which is that 'the EU does stuff, and our politicians and civil servants are signed up to it, even if it's not in our interests, for all sorts of reasons, be they ideological, or hoping for an EU job, so they always gold-plate it, and it goes into UK law without the provenance of it being shown etc. etc. etc.' One is easy to understand, the other is attempting to overturn someone's entire view of what politics is. Completely impossible.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
For those who think Wokery is not a thing...go to London Waterloo station at the moment.
As a man, you will be lectured by EE through giant billboards all over the station on sexist hate in women's football. "EE Hope United will highlight the role of men to act as an ally to women during the Euros, encouraging them to own and challenge the problem of sexist abuse online and elsewhere: as the central perpetrators, online sexist hate is a man’s issue to solve as the campaign leads with the statement ‘Not Her Problem’".
You'd have thought they'd have learned from Gillette, wouldn't you?
I went through Waterloo today, couldn't give a toss as my train was half an hour delayed and it cost be £40 regardless. Perhaps the Government should look at that
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not.
(Wikipedia) … was also a school governor
at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Badenoch is a devout Roman Catholic
Her husband is. She is agnostic and says so on a ToryHome interview I posted earlier.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
Most popular amongst Conservative voters in the Red Wall.
I'm puzzled that RefUK is even a thing that people have heard of, let alone are able to place it on the scale. I've enver heard anyone mention them outside this forum. Do they campaign? Does Richard Tice appear on TV and radio interviews?
Truss drifting a bit - not sure why - maybe punters taking note of Jack W's forecast?
Tugendhat has drifted an awful lot, and after he comfortably qualified as well - which is odd. Particularly before round one.
Why didn't he do so earlier?
Tugendhat votes transferring to Mordaunt would not be a surprise
If Tugendhat gets 3rd tomorrow he likely stays until the final ballots.
If he does as I said earlier Sunak likely lends MPs to Tugendhat to knock out Truss and Mordaunt so his opponent is Tugendhat not them in the membership vote
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
I don't disagree with your point.
But.
The accession of a new country to the EU requires a Treaty signed by every member of the EU and the accession country. (The EU itself is not a signatory.)
Given that the UK had been one of the - if not the - biggest cheerleader for Turkish accession, it would have been pretty awkward for us to veto it at the last. But it is simply incorrect to say that the UK (or Cyprus or Luxembourg) did not have a veto on Turkey joining the EU.
Good job the French didn’t have a veto on us, or we would never have got in in the first place 😧
They did and we didn't. France under Charles de Gaulle repeatedly vetoed Britain's entry during the 1960s.
So they'll have to produce the data on bots to prove he had no right to withdraw ftom the offer. Thickos.
Elon Musk didn't pull out of buying Twitter because of bots, he pulled out because Tesla stock has lost almost half its value, and that meant he'd have to pledge very large amounts of it to his bankers.
Thats not the reason he gave to the SEC, even if its really why. If Twitter want their compensation theyll have to provide the data he says was withheld
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
In what way could we not exercise the veto?
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
But it all shows Labour stance is tear down statues they don’t like, but put up statues of divisive figures they do like, even on the same plinth, doesn’t it?
Change all the statues after election win in much same way change head of BBC or appoint your own BoE chief once in power?
The trouble with new statues is it is usually obvious the statue looks nothing like its subject, whereas for some 18th Century general, we are none the wiser.
I present to you a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest:
Magnificent. Sod all that quiet nobility or noble courage, if I ever get a statue made of me I also want it to make me look like a complete maniac
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
It's defensible using a Bill Clinton-esque argument based on the definition of 'we': "We would not have democratic relations with that enlargement."
There is a brilliant photo of Lady Thatcher on front of tomorrows Express. Whereas the Telegraph seem to have a photo from a used car salesman training seminar.
It think it evident Mail and Express are firmly behind Truss, the Telegraph can’t make up its mind.
Who do you think Times and Sun are backing?
The Mail? Well, they are threatening us with a ‘coalition of chaos’ with Labour, if we don’t all vote Conservative.
For those who think Wokery is not a thing...go to London Waterloo station at the moment.
As a man, you will be lectured by EE through giant billboards all over the station on sexist hate in women's football. "EE Hope United will highlight the role of men to act as an ally to women during the Euros, encouraging them to own and challenge the problem of sexist abuse online and elsewhere: as the central perpetrators, online sexist hate is a man’s issue to solve as the campaign leads with the statement ‘Not Her Problem’".
You'd have thought they'd have learned from Gillette, wouldn't you?
I went through Waterloo today, couldn't give a toss as my train was half an hour delayed and it cost be £40 regardless. Perhaps the Government should look at that
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not.
(Wikipedia) … was also a school governor
at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Badenoch is a devout Roman Catholic
Her husband is. She is agnostic and says so on a ToryHome interview I posted earlier.
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
But it all shows Labour stance is tear down statues they don’t like, but put up statues of divisive figures they do like, even on the same plinth, doesn’t it?
Change all the statues after election win in much same way change head of BBC or appoint your own BoE chief once in power?
The trouble with new statues is it is usually obvious the statue looks nothing like its subject, whereas for some 18th Century general, we are none the wiser.
I present to you a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest:
We’ve already had this one. This one was voted worst statue ever, whilst I replied I kind of liked it. 🙃
We have perfectly good fotos of NBF. The badness of that statue is surely a delberate bit of trolling the libs.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
But beyond a certain point, you can't 'fess up to having said something untrue.
The whole "Turkey are joining the EU" thing was a tangle of deceit all round (the real answer was always "they're in the application process, but going nowhere and Greece and Cyprus will keep it that way. But it's mutually advantageous to pretend that they might join", but it would have caused merry hell to say that out loud.)
But what Mordaunt said about Turkey wasn't true. But it's too late to go back on that now.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken.
Wow, suddenly pointing out that Greensill Dave was a lying, smarmy, duplicitous bastard makes you a bad person, does it?
I don't get this at all. If her point is true (and it is not denied) that the fop had given an undertaking not to veto, it was grossly misleading of him to say We have a veto and not follow up with Though admittedly I personally am estopped from exercising it, and my successors might also be embarrassed by my undertaking. Leave was wrong and dishonest, but let's not forget the appalling patronising dishonesty emanating from the remainariat at all times in general, and over Turkey in particular.
Uncharacteristically obtuse from you. I criticised Cameron’s disingenuity upthread, but the issue is whether Penny was correct or not.
She was incorrect (and possibly lying) then, she must certainly be lying now as she has been asked about it many times subsequently.
I took that clip as conceding a de jure veto, but saying de facto unexerciseable. which comes to the same thing as, no veto. This is a quibble.
No. Cameron could have reversed his decision. There was nothing to stop him doing so, therefore the veto existed.
The capability existed regardless of stated intention, therefore for Ms Mordaunt to say it did not means, to me at least, that she was lying.
And personally, after Boris and Trump, I have had enough of brazen liars at the top of politics
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Can someone explain to me why BlowJo has overturned the Erskine May convention and is refusing parliamentary time to debate a confidence motion he would win?
It has already been explained many times
Starmer tabled a motion that contained conditional language. That, as laid out by the library of the House, does not meet the threshold necessary to be granted a debate.
It was a valid motion but not worded in such a way as to trigger a debate as per the convention. (This also happened in 2018 when a Corbyn motion was not debated)
The government informed Starmer that all he needed to do was table a motion using the standard language and a debate would be granted without question.
No such motion has yet to be tabled.
Starmer, as a lawyer, should understand the need for the right form of language.
It's only the government's opinion that the right form of language has not been used.
If the government can decide whether or not to allow a given confidence motion, we are in murky territory.
Backed up by the opinion of the Library of the House who know more about this than any of us here. And I do trust them.
The solution is very simple. Starmer tables the standard motion and he gets the debate
I don't understand why he isn't doing just that.
In 1965 Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Con) was allowed this form of words "That this House deplores the hasty and ill-considered actions of Her Majesty's Government during their first hundred days of office and has no confidence in their ability to conduct the nation's affairs."
In 1972 Peter Shore (Lab ) was allowed this form of words "That this House condemns the action of Her Majesty's Government in framing its European Communities Bill with the intention of removing the possibility of substantial amendment; and considers this to be a gross breach of faith in the light of undertakings previously given that the Bill and the Treaties could be fully discussed."
There is no standard form of words that has to be used.
Why are you ignoring the use of conditional language that is reason for refusing a debate? That is the key to all this
Neither of the examples you give are in anyway relevant as they don't contain conditional language.
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
In what way could we not exercise the veto?
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
Really?
Going to war in Iraq was incredibly unpopular in Britain, and we still did that.
But it all shows Labour stance is tear down statues they don’t like, but put up statues of divisive figures they do like, even on the same plinth, doesn’t it?
Change all the statues after election win in much same way change head of BBC or appoint your own BoE chief once in power?
The trouble with new statues is it is usually obvious the statue looks nothing like its subject, whereas for some 18th Century general, we are none the wiser.
I present to you a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest:
We’ve already had this one. This one was voted worst statue ever, whilst I replied I kind of liked it. 🙃
We have perfectly good fotos of NBF. The badness of that statue is surely a delberate bit of trolling the libs.
What badness? 🙃
Don’t forget we have PBer’s who think the Houses of Parliament are ghastly eye sore.
He was sacked by Boris, even though he seemingly did less than others in telling him to quit. So he won't be liked by that crowd any long. And many of the other candidates are high profile and either won't need him or have others they need to advance. So he's taking a long shot to remain relevant?
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
In what way could we not exercise the veto?
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
Really?
Going to war in Iraq was incredibly unpopular in Britain, and we still did that.
O/T: I'm taking a friend to this relaunch tomorrow - https://tickets.secretcinema.org/dirty-dancing/ - has anyone been to one of their earlier productions? I think they did a Bridgerton one - it sounds cheesy fun, but I'm not sure if there will be 50 people there or 500...
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
A school governor isn't in the classroom. They are rarely in the school.
If they are serious about the role, though, they will educate themselves about basic realities in the classroom.
Education ministers and PMs don’t spend a huge amount time in the classroom, either.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
In what way could we not exercise the veto?
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
Really?
Careful. You'll upset HYUFD and his 'generation' theories.
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Badenoch is a devout Roman Catholic
"Badenoch describes herself as a cultural Christian and notes that her maternal grandfather was a Methodist minister in Nigeria.[70]"
So they'll have to produce the data on bots to prove he had no right to withdraw ftom the offer. Thickos.
Elon Musk didn't pull out of buying Twitter because of bots, he pulled out because Tesla stock has lost almost half its value, and that meant he'd have to pledge very large amounts of it to his bankers.
Thats not the reason he gave to the SEC, even if its really why. If Twitter want their compensation theyll have to provide the data he says was withheld
The interesting thing is that Rishi Sunak is still far shorter than Penny Mordaunt to make the final two. The market is taking notice of the polls showing Rishi loses in the head-to-heads.
1.15 Rishi Sunak 86% 1.6 Penny Mordaunt 62% 3.35 Liz Truss 29% 9.2 Tom Tugendhat 10% 10 Kemi Badenoch 10% 17 Jeremy Hunt 5% 30 Nadhim Zahawi 30 Suella Braverman
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
It's defensible using a Bill Clinton-esque argument based on the definition of 'we': "We would not have democratic relations with that enlargement."
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Badenoch is a devout Roman Catholic
"Badenoch describes herself as a cultural Christian and notes that her maternal grandfather was a Methodist minister in Nigeria.[70]"
As I said I am backing Roman Catholic Tugendhat for leader who will get to the final rounds, not Badenoch.
Though Badenoch is clearly at least a committed ally of Christians
But it all shows Labour stance is tear down statues they don’t like, but put up statues of divisive figures they do like, even on the same plinth, doesn’t it?
Change all the statues after election win in much same way change head of BBC or appoint your own BoE chief once in power?
The trouble with new statues is it is usually obvious the statue looks nothing like its subject, whereas for some 18th Century general, we are none the wiser.
I present to you a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest:
We’ve already had this one. This one was voted worst statue ever, whilst I replied I kind of liked it. 🙃
We have perfectly good fotos of NBF. The badness of that statue is surely a delberate bit of trolling the libs.
As the English (or is it British?) are proud of their eccentric aristocrats, so do Southerners take pride in their maniac berzerkers.
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
How do you see anyone leading the Tories to a 100 seat majority given the economy? Genuinely interested.
Fundamentally the economic situation is not due to the government's failings - high inflation due to a global supply shock is not their fault. So the public are open to the argument that the government are doing the right things to help the country through a difficult period - provided the government do reasonably helpful things and don't oversell what they're able to achieve.
At the moment the government have oversold what they can do and this has created discontent.
Depends how good Labour are. The Tories blamed Labour for the GFC which worked to great success.
Yes. Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne were effective oppositions that were able to pin the blame on the incumbent government. Kinnock/Smith in 1992 were not, despite the economic trouble at the time.
I'm not convinced that Starmer/Reeves are really landing the blows that would pin the blame on the Tories. They may do, but it's not inevitable, and that's why I disagree with those who say the dire economic situation means it's inevitably curtains for the Tories. Labour have to make the case that the Tories made the crisis worse and can't be trusted to make things better. That's not inevitable.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
I don't disagree with your point.
But.
The accession of a new country to the EU requires a Treaty signed by every member of the EU and the accession country. (The EU itself is not a signatory.)
Given that the UK had been one of the - if not the - biggest cheerleader for Turkish accession, it would have been pretty awkward for us to veto it at the last. But it is simply incorrect to say that the UK (or Cyprus or Luxembourg) did not have a veto on Turkey joining the EU.
Good job the French didn’t have a veto on us, or we would never have got in in the first place 😧
They did and we didn't. France under Charles de Gaulle repeatedly vetoed Britain's entry during the 1960s.
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken.
Wow, suddenly pointing out that Greensill Dave was a lying, smarmy, duplicitous bastard makes you a bad person, does it?
I don't get this at all. If her point is true (and it is not denied) that the fop had given an undertaking not to veto, it was grossly misleading of him to say We have a veto and not follow up with Though admittedly I personally am estopped from exercising it, and my successors might also be embarrassed by my undertaking. Leave was wrong and dishonest, but let's not forget the appalling patronising dishonesty emanating from the remainariat at all times in general, and over Turkey in particular.
Uncharacteristically obtuse from you. I criticised Cameron’s disingenuity upthread, but the issue is whether Penny was correct or not.
She was incorrect (and possibly lying) then, she must certainly be lying now as she has been asked about it many times subsequently.
I took that clip as conceding a de jure veto, but saying de facto unexerciseable. which comes to the same thing as, no veto. This is a quibble.
No. Cameron could have reversed his decision. There was nothing to stop him doing so, therefore the veto existed.
The capability existed regardless of stated intention, therefore for Ms Mordaunt to say it did not means, to me at least, that she was lying.
And personally, after Boris and Trump, I have had enough of brazen liars at the top of politics
Well if she's lost Bev, I see no reason for Penny to continue.
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Badenoch is a devout Roman Catholic
"Badenoch describes herself as a cultural Christian and notes that her maternal grandfather was a Methodist minister in Nigeria.[70]"
As I said I am backing Roman Catholic Tugendhat for leader who will get to the final rounds, not Badenoch.
Though Badenoch is clearly at least a committed ally of Christians
You could have just pretended you were talking about Hamish Badenoch in your OP!
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
In what way could we not exercise the veto?
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
Really?
Going to war in Iraq was incredibly unpopular in Britain, and we still did that.
So they'll have to produce the data on bots to prove he had no right to withdraw ftom the offer. Thickos.
Elon Musk didn't pull out of buying Twitter because of bots, he pulled out because Tesla stock has lost almost half its value, and that meant he'd have to pledge very large amounts of it to his bankers.
Thats not the reason he gave to the SEC, even if its really why. If Twitter want their compensation theyll have to provide the data he says was withheld
Why?
Well presumably if he claims they are in material breach because x, they need to demonstrate not x.
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Well either way she will get knocked out before the final round and I am backing Tugendhat who actually is a Roman Catholic
You seem to be assuming that Tugendhat will go further in this contest than Badenoch.
He will, the right vote is currently split between Badenoch, Braverman and Zahawi and Truss and Hunt will probably go out tomorrow and many of his supporters go to Tugendhat who should come 3rd tomorrow.
Sunak will then lend some of his supporters to Tugendhat to try and get Tugendhat as his opponent in the membership vote
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
In what way could we not exercise the veto?
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
Really?
Going to war in Iraq was incredibly unpopular in Britain, and we still did that.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken.
Wow, suddenly pointing out that Greensill Dave was a lying, smarmy, duplicitous bastard makes you a bad person, does it?
I don't get this at all. If her point is true (and it is not denied) that the fop had given an undertaking not to veto, it was grossly misleading of him to say We have a veto and not follow up with Though admittedly I personally am estopped from exercising it, and my successors might also be embarrassed by my undertaking. Leave was wrong and dishonest, but let's not forget the appalling patronising dishonesty emanating from the remainariat at all times in general, and over Turkey in particular.
Uncharacteristically obtuse from you. I criticised Cameron’s disingenuity upthread, but the issue is whether Penny was correct or not.
She was incorrect (and possibly lying) then, she must certainly be lying now as she has been asked about it many times subsequently.
I took that clip as conceding a de jure veto, but saying de facto unexerciseable. which comes to the same thing as, no veto. This is a quibble.
No. Cameron could have reversed his decision. There was nothing to stop him doing so, therefore the veto existed.
The capability existed regardless of stated intention, therefore for Ms Mordaunt to say it did not means, to me at least, that she was lying.
And personally, after Boris and Trump, I have had enough of brazen liars at the top of politics
Well if she's lost Bev, I see no reason for Penny to continue.
Let’s not panic. This is but one blip. There would at least be enough for a pattern before anyone should use the L**r word.
The most incongruous religious connection is that of Suella - she’s a Buddhist who goes around being mean and rather unkind to those less fortunate than herself. I would have thought that was entirely counter to the teachings of her creed?
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
A school governor isn't in the classroom. They are rarely in the school.
If they are serious about the role, though, they will educate themselves about basic realities in the classroom.
Education ministers and PMs don’t spend a huge amount time in the classroom, either.
Can only assume they weren't serious then. Or are just performatively bullshitting to the audience. Which often ends well as we know.
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Cameron and the Tories played good cop to Turkey all the while knowing that the French and many other countries would veto Turkish accession .
So the UK effectively could have avoided any decision.
Sad echoes of the £350 million on a bus tactic.
The kindest you can say of VL's comments on Turkey was that they technically true but exagerated to a degree that meant they definitely weren't the whole truth.
But to fact-check them properly was to open a can of worms which sensible people wouldn't touch.
But it all shows Labour stance is tear down statues they don’t like, but put up statues of divisive figures they do like, even on the same plinth, doesn’t it?
Change all the statues after election win in much same way change head of BBC or appoint your own BoE chief once in power?
The trouble with new statues is it is usually obvious the statue looks nothing like its subject, whereas for some 18th Century general, we are none the wiser.
I present to you a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest:
We’ve already had this one. This one was voted worst statue ever, whilst I replied I kind of liked it. 🙃
It kinda makes Nathan Bedford Forrest look like a murderous lunatic* with a weird campy disney vibe
Can someone explain to me why BlowJo has overturned the Erskine May convention and is refusing parliamentary time to debate a confidence motion he would win?
It has already been explained many times
Starmer tabled a motion that contained conditional language. That, as laid out by the library of the House, does not meet the threshold necessary to be granted a debate.
It was a valid motion but not worded in such a way as to trigger a debate as per the convention. (This also happened in 2018 when a Corbyn motion was not debated)
The government informed Starmer that all he needed to do was table a motion using the standard language and a debate would be granted without question.
No such motion has yet to be tabled.
Starmer, as a lawyer, should understand the need for the right form of language.
It's only the government's opinion that the right form of language has not been used.
If the government can decide whether or not to allow a given confidence motion, we are in murky territory.
Backed up by the opinion of the Library of the House who know more about this than any of us here. And I do trust them.
The solution is very simple. Starmer tables the standard motion and he gets the debate
I don't understand why he isn't doing just that.
In 1965 Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Con) was allowed this form of words "That this House deplores the hasty and ill-considered actions of Her Majesty's Government during their first hundred days of office and has no confidence in their ability to conduct the nation's affairs."
In 1972 Peter Shore (Lab ) was allowed this form of words "That this House condemns the action of Her Majesty's Government in framing its European Communities Bill with the intention of removing the possibility of substantial amendment; and considers this to be a gross breach of faith in the light of undertakings previously given that the Bill and the Treaties could be fully discussed."
There is no standard form of words that has to be used.
Why are you ignoring the use of conditional language that is reason for refusing a debate? That is the key to all this
Neither of the examples you give are in anyway relevant as they don't contain conditional language.
It really is very simple.
There is nothing in here that precludes Labour framing the no confidence motion in the way they have:
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Badenoch is a devout Roman Catholic
"Badenoch describes herself as a cultural Christian and notes that her maternal grandfather was a Methodist minister in Nigeria.[70]"
WTF.is a "cultural Christian?" Sounds suspiciously like self-ID.
O/T: I'm taking a friend to this relaunch tomorrow - https://tickets.secretcinema.org/dirty-dancing/ - has anyone been to one of their earlier productions? I think they did a Bridgerton one - it sounds cheesy fun, but I'm not sure if there will be 50 people there or 500...
I suspect there will be lots of people, dressed up and ready to party. I know a few who have gone and loved the Secret Cinemas. Are you ready to channel your inner Patrick Swayze? “Nobody puts Baby in a corner.”
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
Well either way she will get knocked out before the final round and I am backing Tugendhat who actually is a Roman Catholic
You seem to be assuming that Tugendhat will go further in this contest than Badenoch.
He will, the right vote is currently split between Badenoch, Braverman and Zahawi and Truss and Hunt will probably go out tomorrow and many of his supporters go to Tugendhat who should come 3rd tomorrow.
Sunak will then lend some of his supporters to Tugendhat to try and get Tugendhat as his opponent in the membership vote
Isn’t that a bit dangerous . Couldn’t it backfire .
So they'll have to produce the data on bots to prove he had no right to withdraw ftom the offer. Thickos.
Elon Musk didn't pull out of buying Twitter because of bots, he pulled out because Tesla stock has lost almost half its value, and that meant he'd have to pledge very large amounts of it to his bankers.
Thats not the reason he gave to the SEC, even if its really why. If Twitter want their compensation theyll have to provide the data he says was withheld
Why?
Well presumably if he claims they are in material breach because x, they need to demonstrate not x.
If he claims they are run by shape-shifting space aliens do they have to prove they aren't?
They have been saying to the SEC for years now what the bot levels are. Musk hasn't said they are faking their revenue and profits - so if bots actually make up 50% of Twitter users not 5% that's actually good for Twitter and any potentisl buyer because that means their users are twice as valuable as they said.
Musk has to prove Material Adverse Affect. Twiiter are holding him to a contract he has freely signed. Getting the exact number of bots wrong is not Material Adverse Affect.
Delaware courts take a dim view of people trying to get out of purchase agreements.
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
In what way could we not exercise the veto?
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
Not surprised about Kemi and net zero. She comes across as a very tribal, hyper political politician. Obviously that might appeal to Conservatives in this campaign, but it creates blind spots and is not a great quality for a PM.
I don't think she's half as formidable as her backers think she is. She'll also undoubtedly be accused of being Gove's puppet.
The whole thing is bonkers. She is not experienced enough to take over in the middle of an economic crisis the like o which we have not seen in decades and with a war in eastern europe that could drag on for years.
She is utterly untested at high office and Tories who think she is ready need to go and take a long cold non-alcoholic drink and get a fecking grip.
LOTO after 2025?
Yeh. May well be.
But now. Nope.
Kemi is the Blue Corbyn.
You're shitting yourself about Kemi v Keir
I assure you that I am not. I can see why she appeals to some Tories though, much as Corbyn appealed to some Labourites. But like Corbyn that appeal is narrow and the lack of any leadership experience is a critical weakness.
Mordaunt is who Starmer and Labour fear most, I reckon. Followed by either Sunak or Tugendhat. After Braverman and Cosplay Thatcher, Badenoch is probably who they most would want to succeed Johnson.
I think the Labour Party would most want Braverman to win.
Champagne corks popping in Labour HQ - Braverman, Zahawi
Pleased - Truss, Hunt
Neutral - Rishi/Tugendhat
Nervous - Penny
WTF is going to happen? - Badenoch
Yep, that's a good analysis
Perhaps a bit more WTF and *actual panic* with Badenoch: how on earth would Labour, and the wider Left, deal with a young black female rightwing Tory leader? How? I can't see any attack lines, prima facie
Badenoch could be an enormous success, or a terrible failure - we simply don't know enough about her yet to be sure. I could see her leading the Conservatives to a 100 seat majority... or their worst result since 2001.
Yes I agree. It's the Hail Mary play. She really needs to run a big department. Where she can deal with the practicalities rather than just the theory of slash the State. In view of the conversation tonight I would suggest education as a good place to start. She might even learn some things.
Or perhaps not. (Wikipedia) … was also a school governor at St Thomas the Apostle College in Southwark, and the Jubilee Primary School.…
We're going through the greatest hits. Now onto Brexit.
Penny has just gone down in my estimation.
I think she handled the question quite well.
The wider point is that there was (and is) a lot of EU policy that absolutely depended on national Governments' willingness to implement it, without demur, and often surreptitiously. So you could say 'the UK has a veto' knowing full well that the Government would never use its veto. But we weren't given a referendum on ending supine national Governments, we were given one on ending our membership of the EU.
Drivel.
We had a veto on Turkish accession, and Penny said we didn’t. She was at best mistaken
The way it was framed in the main Vote Leave press conference on Turkey was that it was UK government policy to support Turkish membership and that voting Leave would be the only chance the electorate here would have to vote directly against free movement with Turkey.
Yes, but Penny in the past incorrectly said that we did not have a veto. She doubled down on that today, and it simply isn't true.
well, what is the metaphysical status of a veto you can't exercise? What becomes of the hole in the middle after the doughnut is eaten?
In what way could we not exercise the veto?
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
Really?
Going to war in Iraq was incredibly unpopular in Britain, and we still did that.
Only with hindsight.
Not true. We marched about it before it happened.
Nevertheless. It was popular. Many marched against it sure. But they were a minority. It polled really well at the time.
The most incongruous religious connection is that of Suella - she’s a Buddhist who goes around being mean and rather unkind to those less fortunate than herself. I would have thought that was entirely counter to the teachings of her creed?
Can someone explain to me why BlowJo has overturned the Erskine May convention and is refusing parliamentary time to debate a confidence motion he would win?
It has already been explained many times
Starmer tabled a motion that contained conditional language. That, as laid out by the library of the House, does not meet the threshold necessary to be granted a debate.
It was a valid motion but not worded in such a way as to trigger a debate as per the convention. (This also happened in 2018 when a Corbyn motion was not debated)
The government informed Starmer that all he needed to do was table a motion using the standard language and a debate would be granted without question.
No such motion has yet to be tabled.
Starmer, as a lawyer, should understand the need for the right form of language.
It's only the government's opinion that the right form of language has not been used.
If the government can decide whether or not to allow a given confidence motion, we are in murky territory.
Backed up by the opinion of the Library of the House who know more about this than any of us here. And I do trust them.
The solution is very simple. Starmer tables the standard motion and he gets the debate
I don't understand why he isn't doing just that.
In 1965 Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Con) was allowed this form of words "That this House deplores the hasty and ill-considered actions of Her Majesty's Government during their first hundred days of office and has no confidence in their ability to conduct the nation's affairs."
In 1972 Peter Shore (Lab ) was allowed this form of words "That this House condemns the action of Her Majesty's Government in framing its European Communities Bill with the intention of removing the possibility of substantial amendment; and considers this to be a gross breach of faith in the light of undertakings previously given that the Bill and the Treaties could be fully discussed."
There is no standard form of words that has to be used.
Why are you ignoring the use of conditional language that is reason for refusing a debate? That is the key to all this
Neither of the examples you give are in anyway relevant as they don't contain conditional language.
It really is very simple.
You seem a teeny weeny little bit obsessed with this.
I just had a look at Linkedin. People are venting their fury about Braverman and Badenoch. How can it be possible that they are opposed to net zero! How can they even be allowed to be candidates! ... There was similar fury about the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade. People were going around building "firewalls" around themselves, cancelling their professional contacts who, however cautiously, expressed a different view.
Linkedin used to be where you could find some sanity. Now it is just no different really to facebook. Social media has just made everyone mad. It is all tribal mob rule. Meaningful debate is completely dead.
Comments
It think it evident Mail and Express are firmly behind Truss, the Telegraph can’t make up its mind.
Who do you think Times and Sun are backing?
Sunak says his economic approach is “common-sense Thatcherism” (expect to hear that line lots in this campaign).
Claims Maggie would be waiting on tax cuts and getting inflation down first if she was in charge.
“I believe that’s what she would have done.” 2/
In 1972 Peter Shore (Lab ) was allowed this form of words "That this House condemns the action of Her Majesty's Government in framing its European Communities Bill with the intention of removing the possibility of substantial amendment; and considers this to be a gross breach of faith in the light of undertakings previously given that the Bill and the Treaties could be fully discussed."
There is no standard form of words that has to be used.
Speech from Reeves tomorrow on the economy
If he does as I said earlier Sunak likely lends MPs to Tugendhat to knock out Truss and Mordaunt so his opponent is Tugendhat not them in the membership vote
Also, while it's true that these are not essential in the way that food is, giving them up entirely would be very difficult. A lot of this expenditure is very important to people in terms of family - over the last year we've spent money in that category visiting my daughter in Bath, visiting family in London, attending a family wedding in Ireland.
Giving up a holiday, or trips to the cinema, is one thing, but not being able to afford to see family or take part in major family life events is quite another.
Musk's withdrawl letter was risible, the onus is not on Twitter to show numbers about bots, it is on Musk to prove there is a latent, hitherto undiscovered, Material Adverse Affect that gets him out of the deal.
He literally stated one of the reasons he was buying the company was to fix "the bot problem"
I also don't disagree with Penny that had Cameron given his personal assurance that Turkey would not be vetoed, him making a meal of the British veto was disingenuous.
It is extremely hard to convey to an electorate the nuances of national Governments' role in the implementation of EU laws and regulations. In many cases 'the EU is making us do this' is, in actuality, a lie. But it's the closest proxy to the truth, which is that 'the EU does stuff, and our politicians and civil servants are signed up to it, even if it's not in our interests, for all sorts of reasons, be they ideological, or hoping for an EU job, so they always gold-plate it, and it goes into UK law without the provenance of it being shown etc. etc. etc.' One is easy to understand, the other is attempting to overturn someone's entire view of what politics is. Completely impossible.
Cameron's *personal* assurances to Erdogan are not in any way binding.
Let's pretend that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and that it is incredibly unpopular in Britain. Are you really claiming that we would be unable to exercise our veto because of something Cameron said in private to another leader?
Really?
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/former-faith-minister-catholic-mp-in-running-to-replace-boris-johnson
Dawkins describes himself as a Cultural Christian
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christians
The whole "Turkey are joining the EU" thing was a tangle of deceit all round (the real answer was always "they're in the application process, but going nowhere and Greece and Cyprus will keep it that way. But it's mutually advantageous to pretend that they might join", but it would have caused merry hell to say that out loud.)
But what Mordaunt said about Turkey wasn't true. But it's too late to go back on that now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62132271
Leon's taxi driver told us this would happen months ago.
The capability existed regardless of stated intention, therefore for Ms Mordaunt to say it did not means, to me at least, that she was lying.
And personally, after Boris and Trump, I have had enough of brazen liars at the top of politics
Neither of the examples you give are in anyway relevant as they don't contain conditional language.
It really is very simple.
Don’t forget we have PBer’s who think the Houses of Parliament are ghastly eye sore.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.160663234
Education ministers and PMs don’t spend a huge amount time in the classroom, either.
1.15 Rishi Sunak 86%
1.6 Penny Mordaunt 62%
3.35 Liz Truss 29%
9.2 Tom Tugendhat 10%
10 Kemi Badenoch 10%
17 Jeremy Hunt 5%
30 Nadhim Zahawi
30 Suella Braverman
Though Badenoch is clearly at least a committed ally of Christians
Really a progression . . . or is it regression?
I'm not convinced that Starmer/Reeves are really landing the blows that would pin the blame on the Tories. They may do, but it's not inevitable, and that's why I disagree with those who say the dire economic situation means it's inevitably curtains for the Tories. Labour have to make the case that the Tories made the crisis worse and can't be trusted to make things better. That's not inevitable.
So the UK effectively could have avoided any decision.
Sunak will then lend some of his supporters to Tugendhat to try and get Tugendhat as his opponent in the membership vote
Or are just performatively bullshitting to the audience.
Which often ends well as we know.
Austerity labour styley
The kindest you can say of VL's comments on Turkey was that they technically true but exagerated to a degree that meant they definitely weren't the whole truth.
But to fact-check them properly was to open a can of worms which sensible people wouldn't touch.
*Which he was. Fort Pillow etc.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02873/SN02873.pdf
Sounds suspiciously like self-ID.
Jake Tapper: "One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup."
John Bolton: "I disagree with that. As somebody who has helped plan coups d’état, not here, but other places; it takes a lot of work."
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1546955197045415936
They have been saying to the SEC for years now what the bot levels are. Musk hasn't said they are faking their revenue and profits - so if bots actually make up 50% of Twitter users not 5% that's actually good for Twitter and any potentisl buyer because that means their users are twice as valuable as they said.
Musk has to prove Material Adverse Affect. Twiiter are holding him to a contract he has freely signed. Getting the exact number of bots wrong is not Material Adverse Affect.
Delaware courts take a dim view of people trying to get out of purchase agreements.
https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1546911482780291073?t=Usjb_nnNE8e3deogAoBJzg&s=09
Mordaunt 3
Sunak 3.05
Truss 5
Badenoch 16.5
Tugendhat 40
Hunt 70
Braverman 130
Zahawi 270
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.160663234
But they were a minority. It polled really well at the time.
I am now all green on the final eight with a minimum win of a decent curry for two.
Mordaunt remains my big pay day win.
Linkedin used to be where you could find some sanity. Now it is just no different really to facebook. Social media has just made everyone mad. It is all tribal mob rule. Meaningful debate is completely dead.