I'm glad that all the "feminists" who love to say they're protecting women by making arguments about limiting individual rights to bodily autonomy are using their platforms to promote this story today... Wait, they aren't? Oh...
But yes, its absolutely disgusting that she's being prosecuted and its not remotely in the public interest. Glad the NHS, feminists, MPs and others are saying so.
Scans and regular pre-natal treatments that she should have had etc were suspended during the pandemic and to have someone prosecuted like this is an absolute disgrace. No equivocation, it is unacceptable and ridiculous.
I can see no leveraging of the massive social platforms of any of the GC crowd - JK Rowling, Maya Forstater, Helen Joyce, Joanna Cherry etc. etc. - nothing. Not even a side mention. They're all online, tweeting about the debate between two amendments on how sex should be defined in law, but nothing about how the law currently oppresses women in reality.
They may be very busy protesting against the groups of activists hanging about outside abortion clinics (particularly prevalent in Glasgow) guilt tripping women entering for an abortion, that'll probably be it.
Surprisingly - also not! Indeed many support Posie Parker (with JK even saying she’d fund her legal fees) an anti-trans activist who has said that abortion is bad and doing permanent damage to women’s bodies, especially young women who get abortions too young (interesting talking points, wonder where they are also used…)
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
The voters of course would be given a view. They would be asked to choose a government which had a stated policy on Turkey's accession to the EU. Presumably there is a party out there that didn't want it to happen. They could have voted for that.
It seems that people are complaining that just because child safeguarding is no good the whole school gets an inadequate, or ineffective rating. So you can have a school which has cracking Maths and English Departments but is no good at safeguarding children and it seems people think it should receive a good or outstanding rating.
Reminds me of the NHS outperforming on all measures apart from health outcomes and saving lives.
The purpose of schools is to educate, especially in Maths and English, as saving lives is for hospitals, safeguarding is important too but not the purpose of school. Indeed 50 years ago most schools, state or private, didn't even do any safeguarding at all.
Indeed, back in the 1970s "safeguarding" involved beating a child with a cane.
And ten years ago a poll found 53% of voters would allow teachers to use the cane again in school with Conservative voters in particular pro caning
They probably mean that other people's children should be whacked. In any case, presumably the entire British cane-making industry closed down in the 1980s, not to mention we are still part of the ECHR. To be serious, what parents are saying is schools are not doing a very good job of preventing disruption, which brings us back to safeguarding, Ofsted and box-ticking.
Plenty of canes still made and used in Singapore and Singapore tops the PISA rankings.
While superficially frivolous, it’s clear evidence, to me, that even the true conservatives have given up.
They’re no longer serious about being in/staying in government.
I stick by my odds;
Evens, the tories never again win a majority.
4/1 they cease to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade.
Given I earlier posted a poll with 53% of UK voters backing restoring the cane in schools (even if 10 years ago) yet another example of leftwingers like you underestimating support for rightwing policies
Oh dear!
I suspect part of your Conservative populist soul died alongside Boris Johnson's career on Friday
Good morning
Just logging in after having spent a fantastic 24 hours at Liverpool's waterfront before we leave for the Isle Of Man later and read @HYUFD comment
Utterly luddite, almost shocking, and not acceptable to the vast majority of us
Re your last sentence I suspect far more than part of his populist soul died with the end of the malign and dreadful Johnson
Boris will be a relative liberal moderate compared to the likes of Braverman, Rees Mogg, Patel, Frost and Badenoch who will increasingly come to the fore of the Conservative Party in opposition if Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election.
With Silvio's passing left liberals used to think he was a rightwing populist extremist, now the Italian PM is the even more rightwing nationalist Meloni (albeit she is less friendly with Putin than he was)
Boris is over - get used to it
HY is the last redoubt apologist for a man that most people now realise was wholly unsuited to high office and it is a weakness of our system that he was ever allowed to get to where he did. He has done massive damage to the Conservative brand, more so than Corbyn did to Labour.
The repair of the Labour brand is in no small part down to Starmer. It's easy to forget how much trouble Labour were in just a few years ago.
Who is the Conservative Starmer? I don't think it's Sunak, and it looks like the Tories are likely to go down the Piddock or Burgon route if they lose the next election.
That is my concern too, particularly as the Conservative Party was the victim of a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party with encouragement given from Johnson and the ERG meaning it is stuffed with a membership of right wing swivel-eyed loons.
It is possible that Penny Mordaunt may be the person to reverse teh Tory decline. She is more rightwing than I would like, but has considerably more personality than nice-but-dull Starmer and might just detox the Conservative brand enough to make a comeback after one term if Starmer doesn't win a commanding majority.
President Mordaunt, 2029.
Mordaunt pretty terrible. Look at her repeated blatant lies about Turkey joining the EU, and doubling-down on them Trump or Johnson-style when picked up on them. Enough of the shameless liars like Johnson or Mordaunt.
Also probably can't pass the alt-right fucc boi purity test of "What is a woman?".
PM4PM is the herpes of British politics. A painful and disfiguring condition that won't go away and yet never kills the patient.
Ah, of course we must take account of your view as you are a very independent thinker. We must admire (or perhaps not) a person that is a Putin apologist and is such a military expert that he was forecasting the certain demise of Ukraine.
Fundamentally, I personally would take your view of Ms Mordaunt as seriously as I would of David Icke if he issued a fatwa against her.
It is still laughable that the swivel eyed Remainers regard it as a lie to describe Turkey, a country in the formal application process of joining the EU, as joining the EU. These people are mental.
tbh if you think Turkey IS joining the EU, then maybe you are the one who should check your mental health.
By the only objective measure, Turkey is joining the EU. Whether Turkey will complete that process is another matter. Its like saying a marathon runner clearly struggling with injury and likely to drop out is "running a marathon". You seem to be struggling with basic verb tenses.
It's like saying a marathon runner who entered a marathon, but broke both legs before the run even started is 'running a marathon'. Perhaps you can also twist yourself into some mental pretzel to justify Mordaunt saying that the UK has no veto on Turkey joining?
Mordaunt’s underlying point was it was the only chance the British people to vote directly against being part of a political union with Turkey because the UK government was one of the most supportive and the UK has always been keenest on expansion so the government wouldn’t use the veto even if the people wanted them to.
As for thinking that the idea Turkey could ever join is a sign of mental illness, what does it say about the organisation that gave Turkey candidate status?
I don't know, but you started saying that people who have a different opinion to you are mentally ill. I don't actually think it is a sign of mental illness, so I withdraw that comment and apologise.
On Turkey and the EU, here's what Sir Craig Oliver wrote in his book "Unleashing Demons: The Inside Story of Brexit":
I wonder if we should be clearer about Turkey not joining the EU - the supposed doubt around it (when there really isn't any) - is being used by the Outers as an example of why the risks of staying in are greater, opening the back door to the most unstable part of the world, and allowing floods of immigrants to come in.
DC says it's not going to happen, but it's hard to be categoric for diplomatic reasons. Anyway, 'France need to have a referendum before they get in - so it's no going to happen.'
If the Remainer had had a spine, they could have nipped the Turkey issue in the bud.
Like Mordaunt she is vulnerable to the doctrinaire anti-wokists who will be the chief selectorate for the next Tory leader.
Her Brexit-y yet socially progressive persona plays well on pb.com but it's hard to see where her wider constituency is beyond tory cis-males who would like to fuck her but haven't been able to get it up since Italia '90.
Unfair. I'm sure I detected a slight tremor in the trouser department in the lead up to the final of the 2020 Euros, sadly snuffed out in a paroxysm of anti-woke rage and sublimated racism.
It seems that people are complaining that just because child safeguarding is no good the whole school gets an inadequate, or ineffective rating. So you can have a school which has cracking Maths and English Departments but is no good at safeguarding children and it seems people think it should receive a good or outstanding rating.
Reminds me of the NHS outperforming on all measures apart from health outcomes and saving lives.
The purpose of schools is to educate, especially in Maths and English, as saving lives is for hospitals, safeguarding is important too but not the purpose of school. Indeed 50 years ago most schools, state or private, didn't even do any safeguarding at all.
Indeed, back in the 1970s "safeguarding" involved beating a child with a cane.
And ten years ago a poll found 53% of voters would allow teachers to use the cane again in school with Conservative voters in particular pro caning
They probably mean that other people's children should be whacked. In any case, presumably the entire British cane-making industry closed down in the 1980s, not to mention we are still part of the ECHR. To be serious, what parents are saying is schools are not doing a very good job of preventing disruption, which brings us back to safeguarding, Ofsted and box-ticking.
Plenty of canes still made and used in Singapore and Singapore tops the PISA rankings.
While superficially frivolous, it’s clear evidence, to me, that even the true conservatives have given up.
They’re no longer serious about being in/staying in government.
I stick by my odds;
Evens, the tories never again win a majority.
4/1 they cease to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade.
Given I earlier posted a poll with 53% of UK voters backing restoring the cane in schools (even if 10 years ago) yet another example of leftwingers like you underestimating support for rightwing policies
Oh dear!
I suspect part of your Conservative populist soul died alongside Boris Johnson's career on Friday
Good morning
Just logging in after having spent a fantastic 24 hours at Liverpool's waterfront before we leave for the Isle Of Man later and read @HYUFD comment
Utterly luddite, almost shocking, and not acceptable to the vast majority of us
Re your last sentence I suspect far more than part of his populist soul died with the end of the malign and dreadful Johnson
Boris will be a relative liberal moderate compared to the likes of Braverman, Rees Mogg, Patel, Frost and Badenoch who will increasingly come to the fore of the Conservative Party in opposition if Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election.
With Silvio's passing left liberals used to think he was a rightwing populist extremist, now the Italian PM is the even more rightwing nationalist Meloni (albeit she is less friendly with Putin than he was)
Boris is over - get used to it
HY is the last redoubt apologist for a man that most people now realise was wholly unsuited to high office and it is a weakness of our system that he was ever allowed to get to where he did. He has done massive damage to the Conservative brand, more so than Corbyn did to Labour.
The repair of the Labour brand is in no small part down to Starmer. It's easy to forget how much trouble Labour were in just a few years ago.
Who is the Conservative Starmer? I don't think it's Sunak, and it looks like the Tories are likely to go down the Piddock or Burgon route if they lose the next election.
That is my concern too, particularly as the Conservative Party was the victim of a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party with encouragement given from Johnson and the ERG meaning it is stuffed with a membership of right wing swivel-eyed loons.
It is possible that Penny Mordaunt may be the person to reverse teh Tory decline. She is more rightwing than I would like, but has considerably more personality than nice-but-dull Starmer and might just detox the Conservative brand enough to make a comeback after one term if Starmer doesn't win a commanding majority.
President Mordaunt, 2029.
Mordaunt pretty terrible. Look at her repeated blatant lies about Turkey joining the EU, and doubling-down on them Trump or Johnson-style when picked up on them. Enough of the shameless liars like Johnson or Mordaunt.
Also probably can't pass the alt-right fucc boi purity test of "What is a woman?".
PM4PM is the herpes of British politics. A painful and disfiguring condition that won't go away and yet never kills the patient.
Ah, of course we must take account of your view as you are a very independent thinker. We must admire (or perhaps not) a person that is a Putin apologist and is such a military expert that he was forecasting the certain demise of Ukraine.
Fundamentally, I personally would take your view of Ms Mordaunt as seriously as I would of David Icke if he issued a fatwa against her.
It is still laughable that the swivel eyed Remainers regard it as a lie to describe Turkey, a country in the formal application process of joining the EU, as joining the EU. These people are mental.
tbh if you think Turkey IS joining the EU, then maybe you are the one who should check your mental health.
By the only objective measure, Turkey is joining the EU. Whether Turkey will complete that process is another matter. Its like saying a marathon runner clearly struggling with injury and likely to drop out is "running a marathon". You seem to be struggling with basic verb tenses.
The point we made at the time, a fact now forgotten by those of us who’ve become committed to Rejoin, is that any member state can veto an application. Which is why neither Turkey’s application, nor any future application by the U.K., will succeed.
So the suggestion that Turkey’s application will succeed, as was the point of the demagoguery that won the referendum, is one that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.
Inconveniently that holds for the U.K. too but former Remainers shut up about that.
Responding to the argument by saying "we can veto it" is entirely fair. Even though David Cameron showed we were unwilling to do that. What is ridiculous is saying "its a lie and the person saying it is unworthy of high office", as Remainers on the last thread were doing. "Joining" is a present tense verb and Turkey is still, as things stand, joining the EU. Just as Kevin De Bruyne was playing in a Champions League final when he was limping about the field.
IMV they are only 'joining' once all the barriers are crossed. They'd barely even started towards the first hurdle. They had applied to join; and that's a very different thing.
Besides, Farage said it, and that pretty much automatically makes it a lie. Who on Earth believes anything that Russophile little sh*t says?
That's not how the EU defines it themselves. The EU themselves define the entire joining process, which Turkey (and Ukraine and others) are in as part of the joining process. Which it is.
So they're within the joining process. They are joining. Whether they will join is a different matter, just as if someone who is running will finish the race is a different matter.
Good to know. I might submit an application to enter next season's NFL draft which apparently means I am "joining" the league.
Mordaunt’s underlying point was it was the only chance the British people to vote directly against being part of a political union with Turkey because the UK government was one of the most supportive and the UK has always been keenest on expansion so the government wouldn’t use the veto even if the people wanted them to.
As for thinking that the idea Turkey could ever join is a sign of mental illness, what does it say about the organisation that gave Turkey candidate status?
What a bizarre contention. The voters vote for the government which decides on these matters so they are endorsing the government's view.
We will vote in the government, whose policies we disagree with.
Well if your journey is typical perhaps people really are as confused as this suggests.
Thank you. I see she worked in the Whips office.....
I've screenshotted the wiki page for posterity; not sure how long that last para will stick around...
It won't. Wikipedia used to (and presumably still does) operate a policy about not libelling people. Anything on there, including speculation about her birth in 1993 and who her parents are, will be removed.
Net popularity amongst the public: Charles III: +19 Holly Willoughby: -12 Keir Starmer: -14 Rishi Sunak: -26 Phillip Schofield: -39 Xi Jinping: -40 Boris Johnson: -45 Prince Andrew: -71 Vladimir Putin: -82
Strange set of people we're sampling there.
Philip Schofield - who had an affair with a young male colleague, then denied it - now only marginally less unpopular than Xi Jinping - who covered up a pandemic which killed several million people, is engaged in a genocide in his own country, and seems to be plotting a future in which all other countries play second fiddle to his.
Which I suppose illustrates the problem with this question. Do you like/dislike this person - clearly not much enthusiasm for the people above. But let's assume the people with a negative view of Philip Schofield are largely the same as have a negative view of Xi Jinping: presumably if asked who they had a more negative view of, most would answer Xi. (Or maybe they wouldn't. Maybe people do actively loathe Schofield.)
My guess would be that Xi had a lot more DKs than Schofield.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
Mr. Root, disagree. People should remember what happens when you choose a charismatic incompetent to be leader.
Why don’t you just use the damn quote button, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. It’s fucking annoying
Morris Dancer has used his own polite but idiosyncratic method of referring to previous comments for at least 18 years. It would seem a shame to change now. I think it adds to the charm of the place.
It seems that people are complaining that just because child safeguarding is no good the whole school gets an inadequate, or ineffective rating. So you can have a school which has cracking Maths and English Departments but is no good at safeguarding children and it seems people think it should receive a good or outstanding rating.
Reminds me of the NHS outperforming on all measures apart from health outcomes and saving lives.
The purpose of schools is to educate, especially in Maths and English, as saving lives is for hospitals, safeguarding is important too but not the purpose of school. Indeed 50 years ago most schools, state or private, didn't even do any safeguarding at all.
Indeed, back in the 1970s "safeguarding" involved beating a child with a cane.
And ten years ago a poll found 53% of voters would allow teachers to use the cane again in school with Conservative voters in particular pro caning
They probably mean that other people's children should be whacked. In any case, presumably the entire British cane-making industry closed down in the 1980s, not to mention we are still part of the ECHR. To be serious, what parents are saying is schools are not doing a very good job of preventing disruption, which brings us back to safeguarding, Ofsted and box-ticking.
Plenty of canes still made and used in Singapore and Singapore tops the PISA rankings.
While superficially frivolous, it’s clear evidence, to me, that even the true conservatives have given up.
They’re no longer serious about being in/staying in government.
I stick by my odds;
Evens, the tories never again win a majority.
4/1 they cease to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade.
Given I earlier posted a poll with 53% of UK voters backing restoring the cane in schools (even if 10 years ago) yet another example of leftwingers like you underestimating support for rightwing policies
Oh dear!
I suspect part of your Conservative populist soul died alongside Boris Johnson's career on Friday
Good morning
Just logging in after having spent a fantastic 24 hours at Liverpool's waterfront before we leave for the Isle Of Man later and read @HYUFD comment
Utterly luddite, almost shocking, and not acceptable to the vast majority of us
Re your last sentence I suspect far more than part of his populist soul died with the end of the malign and dreadful Johnson
Boris will be a relative liberal moderate compared to the likes of Braverman, Rees Mogg, Patel, Frost and Badenoch who will increasingly come to the fore of the Conservative Party in opposition if Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election.
With Silvio's passing left liberals used to think he was a rightwing populist extremist, now the Italian PM is the even more rightwing nationalist Meloni (albeit she is less friendly with Putin than he was)
Boris is over - get used to it
HY is the last redoubt apologist for a man that most people now realise was wholly unsuited to high office and it is a weakness of our system that he was ever allowed to get to where he did. He has done massive damage to the Conservative brand, more so than Corbyn did to Labour.
The repair of the Labour brand is in no small part down to Starmer. It's easy to forget how much trouble Labour were in just a few years ago.
Who is the Conservative Starmer? I don't think it's Sunak, and it looks like the Tories are likely to go down the Piddock or Burgon route if they lose the next election.
That is my concern too, particularly as the Conservative Party was the victim of a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party with encouragement given from Johnson and the ERG meaning it is stuffed with a membership of right wing swivel-eyed loons.
It is possible that Penny Mordaunt may be the person to reverse teh Tory decline. She is more rightwing than I would like, but has considerably more personality than nice-but-dull Starmer and might just detox the Conservative brand enough to make a comeback after one term if Starmer doesn't win a commanding majority.
President Mordaunt, 2029.
Mordaunt pretty terrible. Look at her repeated blatant lies about Turkey joining the EU, and doubling-down on them Trump or Johnson-style when picked up on them. Enough of the shameless liars like Johnson or Mordaunt.
Also probably can't pass the alt-right fucc boi purity test of "What is a woman?".
PM4PM is the herpes of British politics. A painful and disfiguring condition that won't go away and yet never kills the patient.
Ah, of course we must take account of your view as you are a very independent thinker. We must admire (or perhaps not) a person that is a Putin apologist and is such a military expert that he was forecasting the certain demise of Ukraine.
Fundamentally, I personally would take your view of Ms Mordaunt as seriously as I would of David Icke if he issued a fatwa against her.
It is still laughable that the swivel eyed Remainers regard it as a lie to describe Turkey, a country in the formal application process of joining the EU, as joining the EU. These people are mental.
tbh if you think Turkey IS joining the EU, then maybe you are the one who should check your mental health.
By the only objective measure, Turkey is joining the EU. Whether Turkey will complete that process is another matter. Its like saying a marathon runner clearly struggling with injury and likely to drop out is "running a marathon". You seem to be struggling with basic verb tenses.
The point we made at the time, a fact now forgotten by those of us who’ve become committed to Rejoin, is that any member state can veto an application. Which is why neither Turkey’s application, nor any future application by the U.K., will succeed.
So the suggestion that Turkey’s application will succeed, as was the point of the demagoguery that won the referendum, is one that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.
Inconveniently that holds for the U.K. too but former Remainers shut up about that.
Is there a 'rejoin movement' as you imply? I hope so but it's pretty invisible.
They're pinning their hopes on Starmer being such an unprincipled liar that he will campaign on staying out of the single market and customs union and then immediately change his mind after becoming PM.
Tbf several PB Leavers are also pinning their hopes on this so they can turn round and screech 'I TOLD YA!!!!'
Mr. Root, disagree. People should remember what happens when you choose a charismatic incompetent to be leader.
Why don’t you just use the damn quote button, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. It’s fucking annoying
Morris Dancer has used his own polite but idiosyncratic method of referring to previous comments for at least 18 years. It would seem a shame to change now. I think it adds to the charm of the place.
Indeed, even if one has no clue of what he's ion about half the time.
On Turkey and the EU, here's what Sir Craig Oliver wrote in his book "Unleashing Demons: The Inside Story of Brexit":
I wonder if we should be clearer about Turkey not joining the EU - the supposed doubt around it (when there really isn't any) - is being used by the Outers as an example of why the risks of staying in are greater, opening the back door to the most unstable part of the world, and allowing floods of immigrants to come in.
DC says it's not going to happen, but it's hard to be categoric for diplomatic reasons. Anyway, 'France need to have a referendum before they get in - so it's no going to happen.'
If the Remainer had had a spine, they could have nipped the Turkey issue in the bud.
Cameron tied himself up in knots over this issue, because it was government policy to support Turkish accession to the EU and it would have been somewhat un-diplomatic for him to have suggested anything else.
There was even a big set-piece meeting about it, the week after the referendum, and it was the build-up to this meeting that brought the issue to the front of the campaign in its final days.
Mr. Root, disagree. People should remember what happens when you choose a charismatic incompetent to be leader.
Why don’t you just use the damn quote button, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. It’s fucking annoying
Morris Dancer has used his own polite but idiosyncratic method of referring to previous comments for at least 18 years. It would seem a shame to change now. I think it adds to the charm of the place.
Grumbling about what a pita it is also a long standing tradition..
Mr. Root, disagree. People should remember what happens when you choose a charismatic incompetent to be leader.
Why don’t you just use the damn quote button, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. It’s fucking annoying
Morris Dancer has used his own polite but idiosyncratic method of referring to previous comments for at least 18 years. It would seem a shame to change now. I think it adds to the charm of the place.
It makes the conversation impossible to follow, I've had it with him deciding to respond like a fucking muppet
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole "Sturgeon is the first former FM or PM to be arrested in the history of the UK, since Salmond. They're the first former or current leaders of a major party to be arrested since Thorpe in the 70s. She's the first SNP MSP to be arrested since Wed 19 April."
It seems that people are complaining that just because child safeguarding is no good the whole school gets an inadequate, or ineffective rating. So you can have a school which has cracking Maths and English Departments but is no good at safeguarding children and it seems people think it should receive a good or outstanding rating.
Reminds me of the NHS outperforming on all measures apart from health outcomes and saving lives.
The purpose of schools is to educate, especially in Maths and English, as saving lives is for hospitals, safeguarding is important too but not the purpose of school. Indeed 50 years ago most schools, state or private, didn't even do any safeguarding at all.
Indeed, back in the 1970s "safeguarding" involved beating a child with a cane.
And ten years ago a poll found 53% of voters would allow teachers to use the cane again in school with Conservative voters in particular pro caning
They probably mean that other people's children should be whacked. In any case, presumably the entire British cane-making industry closed down in the 1980s, not to mention we are still part of the ECHR. To be serious, what parents are saying is schools are not doing a very good job of preventing disruption, which brings us back to safeguarding, Ofsted and box-ticking.
Plenty of canes still made and used in Singapore and Singapore tops the PISA rankings.
While superficially frivolous, it’s clear evidence, to me, that even the true conservatives have given up.
They’re no longer serious about being in/staying in government.
I stick by my odds;
Evens, the tories never again win a majority.
4/1 they cease to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade.
Given I earlier posted a poll with 53% of UK voters backing restoring the cane in schools (even if 10 years ago) yet another example of leftwingers like you underestimating support for rightwing policies
Oh dear!
I suspect part of your Conservative populist soul died alongside Boris Johnson's career on Friday
Good morning
Just logging in after having spent a fantastic 24 hours at Liverpool's waterfront before we leave for the Isle Of Man later and read @HYUFD comment
Utterly luddite, almost shocking, and not acceptable to the vast majority of us
Re your last sentence I suspect far more than part of his populist soul died with the end of the malign and dreadful Johnson
Boris will be a relative liberal moderate compared to the likes of Braverman, Rees Mogg, Patel, Frost and Badenoch who will increasingly come to the fore of the Conservative Party in opposition if Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election.
With Silvio's passing left liberals used to think he was a rightwing populist extremist, now the Italian PM is the even more rightwing nationalist Meloni (albeit she is less friendly with Putin than he was)
Boris is over - get used to it
HY is the last redoubt apologist for a man that most people now realise was wholly unsuited to high office and it is a weakness of our system that he was ever allowed to get to where he did. He has done massive damage to the Conservative brand, more so than Corbyn did to Labour.
The repair of the Labour brand is in no small part down to Starmer. It's easy to forget how much trouble Labour were in just a few years ago.
Who is the Conservative Starmer? I don't think it's Sunak, and it looks like the Tories are likely to go down the Piddock or Burgon route if they lose the next election.
That is my concern too, particularly as the Conservative Party was the victim of a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party with encouragement given from Johnson and the ERG meaning it is stuffed with a membership of right wing swivel-eyed loons.
It is possible that Penny Mordaunt may be the person to reverse teh Tory decline. She is more rightwing than I would like, but has considerably more personality than nice-but-dull Starmer and might just detox the Conservative brand enough to make a comeback after one term if Starmer doesn't win a commanding majority.
President Mordaunt, 2029.
Mordaunt pretty terrible. Look at her repeated blatant lies about Turkey joining the EU, and doubling-down on them Trump or Johnson-style when picked up on them. Enough of the shameless liars like Johnson or Mordaunt.
Also probably can't pass the alt-right fucc boi purity test of "What is a woman?".
PM4PM is the herpes of British politics. A painful and disfiguring condition that won't go away and yet never kills the patient.
Ah, of course we must take account of your view as you are a very independent thinker. We must admire (or perhaps not) a person that is a Putin apologist and is such a military expert that he was forecasting the certain demise of Ukraine.
Fundamentally, I personally would take your view of Ms Mordaunt as seriously as I would of David Icke if he issued a fatwa against her.
It is still laughable that the swivel eyed Remainers regard it as a lie to describe Turkey, a country in the formal application process of joining the EU, as joining the EU. These people are mental.
tbh if you think Turkey IS joining the EU, then maybe you are the one who should check your mental health.
By the only objective measure, Turkey is joining the EU. Whether Turkey will complete that process is another matter. Its like saying a marathon runner clearly struggling with injury and likely to drop out is "running a marathon". You seem to be struggling with basic verb tenses.
The point we made at the time, a fact now forgotten by those of us who’ve become committed to Rejoin, is that any member state can veto an application. Which is why neither Turkey’s application, nor any future application by the U.K., will succeed.
So the suggestion that Turkey’s application will succeed, as was the point of the demagoguery that won the referendum, is one that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.
Inconveniently that holds for the U.K. too but former Remainers shut up about that.
Responding to the argument by saying "we can veto it" is entirely fair. Even though David Cameron showed we were unwilling to do that. What is ridiculous is saying "its a lie and the person saying it is unworthy of high office", as Remainers on the last thread were doing. "Joining" is a present tense verb and Turkey is still, as things stand, joining the EU. Just as Kevin De Bruyne was playing in a Champions League final when he was limping about the field.
IMV they are only 'joining' once all the barriers are crossed. They'd barely even started towards the first hurdle. They had applied to join; and that's a very different thing.
Besides, Farage said it, and that pretty much automatically makes it a lie. Who on Earth believes anything that Russophile little sh*t says?
That's not how the EU defines it themselves. The EU themselves define the entire joining process, which Turkey (and Ukraine and others) are in as part of the joining process. Which it is.
So they're within the joining process. They are joining. Whether they will join is a different matter, just as if someone who is running will finish the race is a different matter.
To extend that analogy: they hadn't even got their trainers on for the race. In fact, whilst they had been entered for the race, they were currently enjoying a holiday in a cave hotel in Cappadocia whilst the race organisers in Brussels had pulled the starter pistol two weeks earlier.
Saying they were 'joining' when there were so many hurdles is exactly the sort of lie that has led Breixt to be an absolute disaster.
They'd started the race.
Where do you call the starting line?
To me the starting line is when they submit an application and the European Union legally votes to accept that application and begin the process. Which had happened.
When they actually turn up to race. When Mrs J applies to run a race, she send in an application. Hopefully she gets a number and tag (and sometimes shirt) back. Then she has to actually turn up on the day to take part in the race.
Turkey didn't even do that. Again, look at the lack of progress in the Acquis Communautaire over decades.
The problem is that 'joining' gives the impression that it is near-to certain. I'd be happier with 'may be joining'. But 'joining' is simply a lie.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
The voters of course would be given a view. They would be asked to choose a government which had a stated policy on Turkey's accession to the EU. Presumably there is a party out there that didn't want it to happen. They could have voted for that.
No, they wouldn't.
When was the General Election where the voters were given a say over the Lisbon Treaty?
At the 2005 General Election voters gave an overwhelming majority to parties saying there should be a referendum before the EU Constitution was passed. Parliament did otherwise.
Mr. Root, disagree. People should remember what happens when you choose a charismatic incompetent to be leader.
Why don’t you just use the damn quote button, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. It’s fucking annoying
Morris Dancer has used his own polite but idiosyncratic method of referring to previous comments for at least 18 years. It would seem a shame to change now. I think it adds to the charm of the place.
Indeed, even if one has no clue of what he's ion about half the time.
Is it clear whether using the quote function would help at all in this regard?
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
It seems that people are complaining that just because child safeguarding is no good the whole school gets an inadequate, or ineffective rating. So you can have a school which has cracking Maths and English Departments but is no good at safeguarding children and it seems people think it should receive a good or outstanding rating.
Reminds me of the NHS outperforming on all measures apart from health outcomes and saving lives.
The purpose of schools is to educate, especially in Maths and English, as saving lives is for hospitals, safeguarding is important too but not the purpose of school. Indeed 50 years ago most schools, state or private, didn't even do any safeguarding at all.
Indeed, back in the 1970s "safeguarding" involved beating a child with a cane.
And ten years ago a poll found 53% of voters would allow teachers to use the cane again in school with Conservative voters in particular pro caning
They probably mean that other people's children should be whacked. In any case, presumably the entire British cane-making industry closed down in the 1980s, not to mention we are still part of the ECHR. To be serious, what parents are saying is schools are not doing a very good job of preventing disruption, which brings us back to safeguarding, Ofsted and box-ticking.
Plenty of canes still made and used in Singapore and Singapore tops the PISA rankings.
While superficially frivolous, it’s clear evidence, to me, that even the true conservatives have given up.
They’re no longer serious about being in/staying in government.
I stick by my odds;
Evens, the tories never again win a majority.
4/1 they cease to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade.
Given I earlier posted a poll with 53% of UK voters backing restoring the cane in schools (even if 10 years ago) yet another example of leftwingers like you underestimating support for rightwing policies
Oh dear!
I suspect part of your Conservative populist soul died alongside Boris Johnson's career on Friday
Good morning
Just logging in after having spent a fantastic 24 hours at Liverpool's waterfront before we leave for the Isle Of Man later and read @HYUFD comment
Utterly luddite, almost shocking, and not acceptable to the vast majority of us
Re your last sentence I suspect far more than part of his populist soul died with the end of the malign and dreadful Johnson
Boris will be a relative liberal moderate compared to the likes of Braverman, Rees Mogg, Patel, Frost and Badenoch who will increasingly come to the fore of the Conservative Party in opposition if Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election.
With Silvio's passing left liberals used to think he was a rightwing populist extremist, now the Italian PM is the even more rightwing nationalist Meloni (albeit she is less friendly with Putin than he was)
Boris is over - get used to it
HY is the last redoubt apologist for a man that most people now realise was wholly unsuited to high office and it is a weakness of our system that he was ever allowed to get to where he did. He has done massive damage to the Conservative brand, more so than Corbyn did to Labour.
The repair of the Labour brand is in no small part down to Starmer. It's easy to forget how much trouble Labour were in just a few years ago.
Who is the Conservative Starmer? I don't think it's Sunak, and it looks like the Tories are likely to go down the Piddock or Burgon route if they lose the next election.
That is my concern too, particularly as the Conservative Party was the victim of a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party with encouragement given from Johnson and the ERG meaning it is stuffed with a membership of right wing swivel-eyed loons.
It is possible that Penny Mordaunt may be the person to reverse teh Tory decline. She is more rightwing than I would like, but has considerably more personality than nice-but-dull Starmer and might just detox the Conservative brand enough to make a comeback after one term if Starmer doesn't win a commanding majority.
President Mordaunt, 2029.
Mordaunt pretty terrible. Look at her repeated blatant lies about Turkey joining the EU, and doubling-down on them Trump or Johnson-style when picked up on them. Enough of the shameless liars like Johnson or Mordaunt.
Also probably can't pass the alt-right fucc boi purity test of "What is a woman?".
PM4PM is the herpes of British politics. A painful and disfiguring condition that won't go away and yet never kills the patient.
Ah, of course we must take account of your view as you are a very independent thinker. We must admire (or perhaps not) a person that is a Putin apologist and is such a military expert that he was forecasting the certain demise of Ukraine.
Fundamentally, I personally would take your view of Ms Mordaunt as seriously as I would of David Icke if he issued a fatwa against her.
It is still laughable that the swivel eyed Remainers regard it as a lie to describe Turkey, a country in the formal application process of joining the EU, as joining the EU. These people are mental.
tbh if you think Turkey IS joining the EU, then maybe you are the one who should check your mental health.
By the only objective measure, Turkey is joining the EU. Whether Turkey will complete that process is another matter. Its like saying a marathon runner clearly struggling with injury and likely to drop out is "running a marathon". You seem to be struggling with basic verb tenses.
It's like saying a marathon runner who entered a marathon, but broke both legs before the run even started is 'running a marathon'. Perhaps you can also twist yourself into some mental pretzel to justify Mordaunt saying that the UK has no veto on Turkey joining?
Nice analogy except that Turkey has already started the marathon, the EU themselves say as much which is why they say that joining the EU is not an overnight process and list Turkey under their own "joining the EU" webpage and list their progress through the joining process.
Finishing the marathon and starting the marathon are two very different things. If it was finished, then the tense to use would be to say that Turkey has joined the EU, but its not finished, but it has begun, so joining is the only grammatically correct language to use.
Nice try but the EU actually lists Turkey as a 'candidate country', if you want to be honest.
Turkey's application has in fact gone backwards since 2006.
Its interesting how a death can change the context that we frame things in. I've made decent progress organising my dad's funeral, getting family members informed etc.
I am also still working, and a dispute with a company that has gone on for a few weeks and is costing a £small-admittedly amount of money isn't something I can be bothered to fight any further. It isn't in the scheme of things worth my time or stress.
Wonder what other barriers might suddenly be moveable...?
Mordaunt’s underlying point was it was the only chance the British people to vote directly against being part of a political union with Turkey because the UK government was one of the most supportive and the UK has always been keenest on expansion so the government wouldn’t use the veto even if the people wanted them to.
As for thinking that the idea Turkey could ever join is a sign of mental illness, what does it say about the organisation that gave Turkey candidate status?
What a bizarre contention. The voters vote for the government which decides on these matters so they are endorsing the government's view.
We will vote in the government, whose policies we disagree with.
Well if your journey is typical perhaps people really are as confused as this suggests.
Look at the Lisbon Treaty and think again.
Governments go against their manifestos or do actions they weren't elected to do, without consulting the voters, all the freaking time.
Mordaunt was entirely and factually correct. Unambiguously correct.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
I'm prepared to accept she was being slippery: giving the impression that no veto on Turkey's membership existed when she merely meant that she didn't think Dave wanted to wield it. Slippery as an eel!
It seems that people are complaining that just because child safeguarding is no good the whole school gets an inadequate, or ineffective rating. So you can have a school which has cracking Maths and English Departments but is no good at safeguarding children and it seems people think it should receive a good or outstanding rating.
Reminds me of the NHS outperforming on all measures apart from health outcomes and saving lives.
The purpose of schools is to educate, especially in Maths and English, as saving lives is for hospitals, safeguarding is important too but not the purpose of school. Indeed 50 years ago most schools, state or private, didn't even do any safeguarding at all.
Indeed, back in the 1970s "safeguarding" involved beating a child with a cane.
And ten years ago a poll found 53% of voters would allow teachers to use the cane again in school with Conservative voters in particular pro caning
They probably mean that other people's children should be whacked. In any case, presumably the entire British cane-making industry closed down in the 1980s, not to mention we are still part of the ECHR. To be serious, what parents are saying is schools are not doing a very good job of preventing disruption, which brings us back to safeguarding, Ofsted and box-ticking.
Plenty of canes still made and used in Singapore and Singapore tops the PISA rankings.
While superficially frivolous, it’s clear evidence, to me, that even the true conservatives have given up.
They’re no longer serious about being in/staying in government.
I stick by my odds;
Evens, the tories never again win a majority.
4/1 they cease to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade.
Given I earlier posted a poll with 53% of UK voters backing restoring the cane in schools (even if 10 years ago) yet another example of leftwingers like you underestimating support for rightwing policies
Oh dear!
I suspect part of your Conservative populist soul died alongside Boris Johnson's career on Friday
Good morning
Just logging in after having spent a fantastic 24 hours at Liverpool's waterfront before we leave for the Isle Of Man later and read @HYUFD comment
Utterly luddite, almost shocking, and not acceptable to the vast majority of us
Re your last sentence I suspect far more than part of his populist soul died with the end of the malign and dreadful Johnson
Boris will be a relative liberal moderate compared to the likes of Braverman, Rees Mogg, Patel, Frost and Badenoch who will increasingly come to the fore of the Conservative Party in opposition if Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election.
With Silvio's passing left liberals used to think he was a rightwing populist extremist, now the Italian PM is the even more rightwing nationalist Meloni (albeit she is less friendly with Putin than he was)
Boris is over - get used to it
HY is the last redoubt apologist for a man that most people now realise was wholly unsuited to high office and it is a weakness of our system that he was ever allowed to get to where he did. He has done massive damage to the Conservative brand, more so than Corbyn did to Labour.
The repair of the Labour brand is in no small part down to Starmer. It's easy to forget how much trouble Labour were in just a few years ago.
Who is the Conservative Starmer? I don't think it's Sunak, and it looks like the Tories are likely to go down the Piddock or Burgon route if they lose the next election.
That is my concern too, particularly as the Conservative Party was the victim of a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party with encouragement given from Johnson and the ERG meaning it is stuffed with a membership of right wing swivel-eyed loons.
It is possible that Penny Mordaunt may be the person to reverse teh Tory decline. She is more rightwing than I would like, but has considerably more personality than nice-but-dull Starmer and might just detox the Conservative brand enough to make a comeback after one term if Starmer doesn't win a commanding majority.
President Mordaunt, 2029.
Mordaunt pretty terrible. Look at her repeated blatant lies about Turkey joining the EU, and doubling-down on them Trump or Johnson-style when picked up on them. Enough of the shameless liars like Johnson or Mordaunt.
Also probably can't pass the alt-right fucc boi purity test of "What is a woman?".
PM4PM is the herpes of British politics. A painful and disfiguring condition that won't go away and yet never kills the patient.
Ah, of course we must take account of your view as you are a very independent thinker. We must admire (or perhaps not) a person that is a Putin apologist and is such a military expert that he was forecasting the certain demise of Ukraine.
Fundamentally, I personally would take your view of Ms Mordaunt as seriously as I would of David Icke if he issued a fatwa against her.
It is still laughable that the swivel eyed Remainers regard it as a lie to describe Turkey, a country in the formal application process of joining the EU, as joining the EU. These people are mental.
tbh if you think Turkey IS joining the EU, then maybe you are the one who should check your mental health.
By the only objective measure, Turkey is joining the EU. Whether Turkey will complete that process is another matter. Its like saying a marathon runner clearly struggling with injury and likely to drop out is "running a marathon". You seem to be struggling with basic verb tenses.
It's like saying a marathon runner who entered a marathon, but broke both legs before the run even started is 'running a marathon'. Perhaps you can also twist yourself into some mental pretzel to justify Mordaunt saying that the UK has no veto on Turkey joining?
Mordaunt’s underlying point was it was the only chance the British people to vote directly against being part of a political union with Turkey because the UK government was one of the most supportive and the UK has always been keenest on expansion so the government wouldn’t use the veto even if the people wanted them to.
As for thinking that the idea Turkey could ever join is a sign of mental illness, what does it say about the organisation that gave Turkey candidate status?
I don't know, but you started saying that people who have a different opinion to you are mentally ill. I don't actually think it is a sign of mental illness, so I withdraw that comment and apologise.
I think it was @WillG who made the original comment.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
The voters of course would be given a view. They would be asked to choose a government which had a stated policy on Turkey's accession to the EU. Presumably there is a party out there that didn't want it to happen. They could have voted for that.
No, they wouldn't.
When was the General Election where the voters were given a say over the Lisbon Treaty?
At the 2005 General Election voters gave an overwhelming majority to parties saying there should be a referendum before the EU Constitution was passed. Parliament did otherwise.
Then wait until the next election and vote for the party who promises to reverse this. Just like they did in 2019 for a party which said they really, really would get Brexit done.
It's all democratic. Not every dot and comma of a manifesto is followed, as well we know.
On topic, all true but it won't stop the claim being made loudly and often, if Sunak loses, that Johnson wouldn't and won bigly in 2019.
That ignores the farce of much of his Premiership, and the reality that the joke had long since stopped being funny. But many will buy into the lie.
Anyone who threw away internal goodwill after a huge win to the point they were ousted after 3 years was never going to win big again.
He might have perhaps have clung on - the especially chaotic Trussian aftermath and Sunakian restoration could well have made it even worse, but still only happened because he was such a mess in the first place.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
putting pressure on by.... leaving. Right.
Yes, you may have noticed that the referendum outcome was not exactly welcomed by the establishment.
Yep, Reddit are screwed, alongside many other internet business that rely mostly on advertising rather than subscription revenue.
Advertising spend is way off in the last few months, I’ve heard of creators on Youtube getting cut 50% for example.
Everyone is trying to find new sources of revenue, whether it’s charging customers directly (as Twitter is doing) or charging for ‘business-to-business’ API access (as Reddit is doing). The problem Reddit has, is that much of the API stuff is done by individuals and small organisations, who can’t afford to pay commercial rates.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
The voters of course would be given a view. They would be asked to choose a government which had a stated policy on Turkey's accession to the EU. Presumably there is a party out there that didn't want it to happen. They could have voted for that.
No, they wouldn't.
When was the General Election where the voters were given a say over the Lisbon Treaty?
At the 2005 General Election voters gave an overwhelming majority to parties saying there should be a referendum before the EU Constitution was passed. Parliament did otherwise.
Then wait until the next election and vote for the party who promises to reverse this. Just like they did in 2019 for a party which said they really, really would get Brexit done.
It's all democratic. Not every dot and comma of a manifesto is followed, as well we know.
With the EU you can't reverse it, once a decision is made, it is made. There are no takebacks once a treaty is ratified.
In 2010 David Cameron couldn't reverse the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Yes, which means that Mordaunt was correct.
The British voters would not get a say. The government would, and the government had a policy, and it would not be giving the voters a choice on the matter.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Why is it that support for capital punishment is a taboo issue for all the main parties when it has majority support among the public for some crimes?
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Yes, which means that Mordaunt was correct.
The British voters would not get a say. The government would, and the government had a policy, and it would not be giving the voters a choice on the matter.
The voters vote in the government that is how our politics works. So they absolutely have a say in the matter. And if the government does something they don't like a) the voters will still have had a say as they voted in the government; and b) they can vote for someone else next time reversing the previous government's decision.
Mr. Root, disagree. People should remember what happens when you choose a charismatic incompetent to be leader.
Why don’t you just use the damn quote button, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. It’s fucking annoying
Morris Dancer has used his own polite but idiosyncratic method of referring to previous comments for at least 18 years. It would seem a shame to change now. I think it adds to the charm of the place.
It makes the conversation impossible to follow, I've had it with him deciding to respond like a fucking muppet
The impossibility of following the conversation as it veers from closed railway lines to ice cream flavours to angels dancing on a pin to polling for municipal elections in Kazakhstan to pointless abuse is part of the charm. mixed of course with a dose of utter charmlessness, of PB.
So, moving on, does anyone have a favourite Ode of Horace by any chance, or a plan to reopen Riccarton Junction?
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Why is it that support for capital punishment is a taboo issue for all the main parties when it has majority support among the public for some crimes?
Lack of political opportunism by the Capital Punishment Party.
Or, the voters really don't care enough about capital punishment to alter their vote in any way.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
putting pressure on by.... leaving. Right.
Yes, you may have noticed that the referendum outcome was not exactly welcomed by the establishment.
It was by the reactionary right wing establishment. The Moggs, the Dacre/Murdochs, the Odeys, the Bothams.
Mr. Root, disagree. People should remember what happens when you choose a charismatic incompetent to be leader.
Why don’t you just use the damn quote button, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. It’s fucking annoying
Morris Dancer has used his own polite but idiosyncratic method of referring to previous comments for at least 18 years. It would seem a shame to change now. I think it adds to the charm of the place.
Grumbling about what a pita it is also a long standing tradition..
If only it were a pita, it might contain a kebab or falafel or some other redeeming feature.
Yep, Reddit are screwed, alongside many other internet business that rely mostly on advertising rather than subscription revenue.
Advertising spend is way off in the last few months, I’ve heard of creators on Youtube getting cut 50% for example.
Everyone is trying to find new sources of revenue, whether it’s charging customers directly (as Twitter is doing) or charging for ‘business-to-business’ API access (as Reddit is doing). The problem Reddit has, is that much of the API stuff is done by individuals and small organisations, who can’t afford to pay commercial rates.
And worse in the case of reddit, most people are doing it for community / love / none commercial reasons...
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
putting pressure on by.... leaving. Right.
Yes, you may have noticed that the referendum outcome was not exactly welcomed by the establishment.
It was by the reactionary right wing establishment. The Moggs, the Dacre/Murdochs, the Odeys, the Bothams.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Yes, which means that Mordaunt was correct.
The British voters would not get a say. The government would, and the government had a policy, and it would not be giving the voters a choice on the matter.
The voters vote in the government that is how our politics works. So they absolutely have a say in the matter. And if the government does something they don't like a) the voters will still have had a say as they voted in the government; and b) they can vote for someone else next time reversing the previous government's decision.
Glad to see you endorsing Brexit and taking back control wholeheartedly. 👍
Only in a post-Brexit sovereign democracy can the policies be reversed.
Within the EU, once the ratchet was turned the UK had no say in reversing it unilaterally.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
putting pressure on by.... leaving. Right.
Yes, you may have noticed that the referendum outcome was not exactly welcomed by the establishment.
It was by the reactionary right wing establishment. The Moggs, the Dacre/Murdochs, the Odeys, the Bothams.
The word 'reactionary' would be superfluous if their views had held sway.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
You seem a bit worried by Ms Mordaunt? It kind of reminds me of the apologists for Boris Johnson who desperately wanted us to believe that Starmer was just too boring to be able to have any chance of defeating their man.
The reality is that Penny Mordaunt is probably the only person currently on the Tory front bench who might (and I am saying might) have the electoral appeal to deliver us from having two terms of anti-business nanny-stateism from Starmer.
For that reason I quite like her and you fear her.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Yes, which means that Mordaunt was correct.
The British voters would not get a say. The government would, and the government had a policy, and it would not be giving the voters a choice on the matter.
The voters vote in the government that is how our politics works. So they absolutely have a say in the matter. And if the government does something they don't like a) the voters will still have had a say as they voted in the government; and b) they can vote for someone else next time reversing the previous government's decision.
Glad to see you endorsing Brexit and taking back control wholeheartedly. 👍
Only in a post-Brexit sovereign democracy can the policies be reversed.
Within the EU, once the ratchet was turned the UK had no say in reversing it unilaterally.
I endorse the fact that people had to throw themselves off the cliff in order to convince themselves that they always had the ability (let's call it sovereignty) to throw themselves off the cliff.
Can you believe that there are people out there who think and thought we were never able to, or were not allowed by some unseen force throw ourselves off the cliff.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
Indeed and when they were consulted it was conditional upon giving the right answer! #EU Democracy!
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Why is it that support for capital punishment is a taboo issue for all the main parties when it has majority support among the public for some crimes?
Lack of political opportunism by the Capital Punishment Party.
Or, the voters really don't care enough about capital punishment to alter their vote in any way.
The difference between agreeing with a policy and the significance of it. The people who want it probably don’t include it as a red line. Those who do not want it may consider it a disqualifying policy.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
You are a funny old sausage and no mistake.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
Why is it that support for capital punishment is a taboo issue for all the main parties when it has majority support among the public for some crimes?
Boris Johnson: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish. To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac - but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality”
1. Has shagger taken the Chiltern Hundreds yet? 2. Is the delay because he hasn't applied or because the CofE hasn't approved it? 3. Will he be an MP when the Standards Committee publish?
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be able to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
She's obviously smart enough to realise that she couldn't tell an untruth and hence obfuscated and bumbled and in so doing convinced a large number of people (bonjour Bart) that she had said something she hadn't, in fact, ever said.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be able to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
Yes she says the British people repeatedly. Thanks for confirming I was right. 😃
Still apologising for him. I know we are not supposed to drop the H-bomb, but a certain odd looking Austrian once won an emphatic victory in Germany (based on the idea of the threat of foreigners). I don't think anyone would say that therefore forgave him for everything else that followed? Perhaps you would.
Let me break it to you. Johnson is shit. He is a liar. And if Labour win the next two elections it is the fault of Johnson and naïve gullible fools like you who are unable to see the reality and continue to mindlessly support him and find more and more incredulous ways to apologise for him
Boris Johnson: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish. To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac - but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality”
I suspect he might be right. Although why Rishi was supposed to do a favour for Boris is beyond me.
1. Has shagger taken the Chiltern Hundreds yet? 2. Is the delay because he hasn't applied or because the CofE hasn't approved it? 3. Will he be an MP when the Standards Committee publish?
It normally simply takes a few days for the notice to appear, and there is no need to "apply" in any formal sense (this came up for Sinn Fein MPs wishing to leave but not to "apply for a Government job") - the MP simply confirms they no longer wish to be an MP and the formality is a matter for HMT.
Christian 43.0% Muslim 12.5% Hindu 8.6% Sikh 4.1% Buddhist 0.9% Jewish 0.2% Others 0.7% No religion 23.7% Not answered 6.2%
pretty typical of UK then
Not at all actually. Much higher Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. Much, much lower no religion. And a bit lower Christian too.
The well above average Hindu vote in Uxbridge will likely boost Rishi and the Tories there
Why didn't the very similar Watford vote Conservative in the May?
Uxbridge still has a higher Hindu percentage than Watford.
Watford was not Conservative held in 1997, Uxbridge was. Watford was only 50% Leave, Hillingdon was 56% Leave. The Tories also held Hillingdon council last year even if they don't control Watford council.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
And that's a highly disingenuous rebuttal. Yes, in theory Turkish membership could be put to a vote, but it wasn't something that could be promised by the then government, and it's difficult to imagine any British government doing it because for the UK to become a barrier to expansion would run counter our establishment's whole view of the EU. They wanted to be the ones putting pressure on other members to expand the club.
putting pressure on by.... leaving. Right.
Yes, you may have noticed that the referendum outcome was not exactly welcomed by the establishment.
It was by the reactionary right wing establishment. The Moggs, the Dacre/Murdochs, the Odeys, the Bothams.
The word 'reactionary' would be superfluous if their views had held sway.
Well I did at first type 'rancid' but amended it to be more PC. And their views have prevailed on this one. They've got their wicked way.
Christian 43.0% Muslim 12.5% Hindu 8.6% Sikh 4.1% Buddhist 0.9% Jewish 0.2% Others 0.7% No religion 23.7% Not answered 6.2%
pretty typical of UK then
Not at all actually. Much higher Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. Much, much lower no religion. And a bit lower Christian too.
The well above average Hindu vote in Uxbridge will likely boost Rishi and the Tories there
Why didn't the very similar Watford vote Conservative in the May?
Uxbridge still has a higher Hindu percentage than Watford.
Watford was not Conservative held in 1997, Uxbridge was. Watford was only 50% Leave, Hillingdon was 56% Leave. The Tories also held Hillingdon council last year even if they don't control Watford council.
Not all Hindus will vote for the same party. Stop pretending to be an expert on Hindus!
1. Has shagger taken the Chiltern Hundreds yet? 2. Is the delay because he hasn't applied or because the CofE hasn't approved it? 3. Will he be an MP when the Standards Committee publish?
It's an interesting point that the Recall Act has made this point legally relevant, whereas previously the whole procedure was completely fictitious and there was never any formal process of application or appointment.
Maybe this half-baked law is an under-recognised aspect of Nick Clegg's contribution.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
I think she had a solid underlying point but it was under-rehearsed which led to her misspeaking in a couple of interviews.
Either way, the question of Turkish membership is not what swung the referendum and the continuing focus on it is bizarre. If you go over any past election campaign with a fine-tooth comb, you'll find comparable examples, but people normally accept the result and move on.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be able to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
Yes she says the British people repeatedly. Thanks for confirming I was right. 😃
Do you dispute the transcription as rendered above? Because in that clip she doesn't say the British People do or don't do anything.
Can you pls transcribe (in lieu of me having to listen to it myself) the actual part she says the British People in the way which would categorically prove your point.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
She's obviously smart enough to realise that she couldn't tell an untruth and hence obfuscated and bumbled and in so doing convinced a large number of people (bonjour Bart) that she had said something she hadn't, in fact, ever said.
Which proves that she is not (as in the mad fantasies of those lefties that fear her) similar to Johnson. He would have just told a barefaced lie. Case dismissed.
1. Has shagger taken the Chiltern Hundreds yet? 2. Is the delay because he hasn't applied or because the CofE hasn't approved it? 3. Will he be an MP when the Standards Committee publish?
Supposedly none of them have formally resigned to the Chancellor yet so they can't go to the Chiltern Hundreds today.
Which may be awkward for Bozo because it means there is a fair chance the committee reports before he goes.
Christian 43.0% Muslim 12.5% Hindu 8.6% Sikh 4.1% Buddhist 0.9% Jewish 0.2% Others 0.7% No religion 23.7% Not answered 6.2%
pretty typical of UK then
Not at all actually. Much higher Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. Much, much lower no religion. And a bit lower Christian too.
The well above average Hindu vote in Uxbridge will likely boost Rishi and the Tories there
Why didn't the very similar Watford vote Conservative in the May?
Uxbridge still has a higher Hindu percentage than Watford.
Watford was not Conservative held in 1997, Uxbridge was. Watford was only 50% Leave, Hillingdon was 56% Leave. The Tories also held Hillingdon council last year even if they don't control Watford council.
Not Hindus will vote for the same party. Stop pretending to be an expert on Hindus!
Not all US blacks voted for Obama either, the vast majority did
There's rumour that Charlotte Owen- the 29 year old advisor Boris Johnson gave a peerage to might be his daughter from an affair during his first marriage.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
I think she had a solid underlying point but it was under-rehearsed which led to her misspeaking in a couple of interviews.
Either way, the question of Turkish membership is not what swung the referendum and the continuing focus on it is bizarre. If you go over any past election campaign with a fine-tooth comb, you'll find comparable examples, but people normally accept the result and move on.
I agree. The only issue in this case, and one which is disappointing but it is what it is, is that this played upon the views of various xenophobes and racists in the UK. As did "the poster". It didn't create those attitudes, just that it enabled/gave credence to them.
Still apologising for him. I know we are not supposed to drop the H-bomb, but a certain odd looking Austrian once won an emphatic victory in Germany (based on the idea of the threat of foreigners). I don't think anyone would say that therefore forgave him for everything else that followed? Perhaps you would.
Let me break it to you. Johnson is shit. He is a liar. And if Labour win the next two elections it is the fault of Johnson and naïve gullible fools like you who are unable to see the reality and continue to mindlessly support him and find more and more incredulous ways to apologise for him
No it isn't, if Labour win it will largely be down to cost of living, strikes and inflation (a lot stemming from Putin's invasion of Ukraine) plus natural time for change after over 10 years in power of any party
Christian 43.0% Muslim 12.5% Hindu 8.6% Sikh 4.1% Buddhist 0.9% Jewish 0.2% Others 0.7% No religion 23.7% Not answered 6.2%
pretty typical of UK then
Not at all actually. Much higher Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. Much, much lower no religion. And a bit lower Christian too.
The well above average Hindu vote in Uxbridge will likely boost Rishi and the Tories there
Why didn't the very similar Watford vote Conservative in the May?
Uxbridge still has a higher Hindu percentage than Watford.
Watford was not Conservative held in 1997, Uxbridge was. Watford was only 50% Leave, Hillingdon was 56% Leave. The Tories also held Hillingdon council last year even if they don't control Watford council.
Not Hindus will vote for the same party. Stop pretending to be an expert on Hindus!
Not all US blacks voted for Obama either, the vast majority did
Exactly, so not all Uxbridge Hindus will back your boy, will they?
Yep, Reddit are screwed, alongside many other internet business that rely mostly on advertising rather than subscription revenue.
Advertising spend is way off in the last few months, I’ve heard of creators on Youtube getting cut 50% for example.
Everyone is trying to find new sources of revenue, whether it’s charging customers directly (as Twitter is doing) or charging for ‘business-to-business’ API access (as Reddit is doing). The problem Reddit has, is that much of the API stuff is done by individuals and small organisations, who can’t afford to pay commercial rates.
I'd still feel pretty good long-term for YouTube. While they are no longer able to sustain growth like they used to and will be subject to the whims of the wider economy (which is true for all advertising), they are a proper advertising medium with a proper targeting platform and a good range of advertising products, plus an active user base of both creators and consumers.
For Reddit, Twitter and the like, to paraphrase Logan Roy, "You are not serious advertising platforms". The reason so many advertisers were easily able to bin Twitter off the marketing plan after Musk started his titting about is that it's not, nor ever has been, that good a place to advertise. Ditto Reddit, but for different reasons - and long-term I can see it seriously struggling. Already a lot of Reddit groups have largely moved to Discord because it offers better functionality (and also privacy).
One of the reasons I kind of take the announcement by Meta of a Twitter-like service moderately seriously is that they have a pre-existing infrastructure that will dovetail well with a new service (unlike, say Parler or Mastodon), and they offer a good proposition to advertisers.
Christian 43.0% Muslim 12.5% Hindu 8.6% Sikh 4.1% Buddhist 0.9% Jewish 0.2% Others 0.7% No religion 23.7% Not answered 6.2%
pretty typical of UK then
Not at all actually. Much higher Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. Much, much lower no religion. And a bit lower Christian too.
The well above average Hindu vote in Uxbridge will likely boost Rishi and the Tories there
Why didn't the very similar Watford vote Conservative in the May?
Uxbridge still has a higher Hindu percentage than Watford.
Watford was not Conservative held in 1997, Uxbridge was. Watford was only 50% Leave, Hillingdon was 56% Leave. The Tories also held Hillingdon council last year even if they don't control Watford council.
Not Hindus will vote for the same party. Stop pretending to be an expert on Hindus!
Not all US blacks voted for Obama either, the vast majority did
Exactly, so not all Uxbridge Hindus will back your boy, will they?
No but the vast majority will.
Indeed I think Hindus could well overtake Jews and Anglicans to become the highest Conservative voting religious group in the UK at the general election next year
1. Has shagger taken the Chiltern Hundreds yet? 2. Is the delay because he hasn't applied or because the CofE hasn't approved it? 3. Will he be an MP when the Standards Committee publish?
Supposedly none of them have formally resigned to the Chancellor yet so they can't go to the Chiltern Hundreds today.
Which may be awkward for Bozo because it means there is a fair chance the committee reports before he goes.
Exactly. Saying "I quit" doesn't mean that you have quit. You cannot quit - you have to be appointed to a crown office which Hunt will only do when applied for in writing.
That supposedly none of them have gone suggests its more on Hunt than them, but who knows?
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be able to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
Yes she says the British people repeatedly. Thanks for confirming I was right. 😃
I have posted the clip and transcribed as accurately as I can what was said in the exchange. I have not endorsed your opinion.
The first part of what she says is clearly wrong. I won't call it a lie if it hadn't been followed up with a second "no" because they way she switches to "the British people", basically interrupting herself, means, I think, that she knew she was wrong/lying and wanted to try to say something truthful instead. But she said something wrong, and then repeated the mistake or lie straight afterwards when she give a flat and reasonably forceful "no" to Marr's question.
Anybody who is interested, don't take my word for it. Watch the clip. But my twopenneth is I think she wanted to make the point about the British people but fell into a lie in the heat of the moment when AM asked about the "wrong" thing.
1. Has shagger taken the Chiltern Hundreds yet? 2. Is the delay because he hasn't applied or because the CofE hasn't approved it? 3. Will he be an MP when the Standards Committee publish?
Supposedly none of them have formally resigned to the Chancellor yet so they can't go to the Chiltern Hundreds today.
Which may be awkward for Bozo because it means there is a fair chance the committee reports before he goes.
Exactly. Saying "I quit" doesn't mean that you have quit. You cannot quit - you have to be appointed to a crown office which Hunt will only do when applied for in writing.
That supposedly none of them have gone suggests its more on Hunt than them, but who knows?
It requires paper work. Firstly from them to Hunt then for someone to do the final bit
As none of them are that competent I would assume the screwup is at the Bozo / Nadine / Adams end.
💥Chopper’s Politics Newsletter: Boris Johnson could be banned for life from Parliament
- Privileges report due in next 48 hours - MPs' vote in the middle of next week - Labour MPs might amend motion to add in a permanent ban from Commons. Johnson's team say this is not possible
Oh my god, are we still talking about Turkish membership?
The claim that Turkey was joining the EU was a kind of lie. Who cares about the semantics, the reality was they were not joining any time soon.
It wasn’t the worst kind of lie. In fact, I’d argue it falls into the species of half-truth that is common in US political debate but less so in the UK (see below). It practice, it cleverly pinpointed an obfuscation and hypocrisy on the Remain side.
Cameron, as noted upthread, was too feeble to rebut the point properly.
The main issue with the claim was the unfortunate racist undertone. Previously, such claims would not have been considered acceptable within the tacit consensus governing British political discourse.
Leave specialised in these not-quite-lies with a racist flavour. Remain never saw it coming.
The British people don't have a veto on anything. Parliament is sovereign.
The King is, technically, I thought? Form over substance - Chucky 3 sticks. Substance over form - Parliament.
Crown in Parliament is technically sovereign
There are several sorts of top dog authority. The USA has a system which can get stuck because of the degree of dispersal of top powers. Too many elected top dogs (POTUS, 2 Houses + politicised SCOTUS).
We have: Inherited traditional monarch, who over time has submitted powers to parliament, and whose identity is determined by Act of Parliament.
Parliament: Where the HoC is clearly supreme over HoL, but whose acts require monarch's signature. No-one knows what happens if refused.
SC: Who can reverse its own past decisions, has theoretically unlimited powers, and therefore could (but never has) decide to overturn an Act of Parliament (?the Torturing Children for Fun: Legalisation Of Act 2025). A useful safety net.
The army. Whose loyalty is to crown not government, and who, in extremis, probably has more common sense than the rest put together.
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
She's obviously smart enough to realise that she couldn't tell an untruth and hence obfuscated and bumbled and in so doing convinced a large number of people (bonjour Bart) that she had said something she hadn't, in fact, ever said.
most agree. but she definitely repeated the untruth and left it hanging. These things happen in conversations, I call the first one a "mis-speak" and the second one a lie because by then you can see her brain has caught up with her mouth and she knows what she's saying is wrong. Mens rea is there. It was a lie.
Mr. Root, disagree. People should remember what happens when you choose a charismatic incompetent to be leader.
Why don’t you just use the damn quote button, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. It’s fucking annoying
Morris Dancer has used his own polite but idiosyncratic method of referring to previous comments for at least 18 years. It would seem a shame to change now. I think it adds to the charm of the place.
It makes the conversation impossible to follow, I've had it with him deciding to respond like a fucking muppet
If you don’t find it helpful, ignore it.
Don’t pick a fight with yet another forum member over something that doesn’t really matter
Actually I was commenting on Mordaunt saying the UK has no veto on Turkish entry (afaik she still refuses to say that is wrong), and as an example (Sandpit provided another) of Mordaunt's lack of character. She strikes me as someone who has entered politics for the wrong reasons - in that way she seems like Johnson to me.
She may have misspoke in her precise wording, but her point was that the British people don't have a veto because they wouldn't be asked and the government's policy was to support Turkish membership.
She didn't even mis-speak, she was quite clear, repeatedly, in what she was saying. I just listened to her interview with Andrew Marr on this again, and she repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view.
Which is correct. She was right, unequivocally. Those calling her lying either misunderstand what she said and are wrong, or understand it and are lying themselves about it.
Even if she said that it's a highly disingenuous comment. It can be addressed simply by putting the proposal to vote, as several other countries routinely do. In any case the public aren't directly consulted on anything else, so why pick out Turkish membership of the EU.
She was questioned about this on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in May 2016.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
AM: The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining, so we don't let- have to let them join PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be able to, so the British People... AM: I thought... I thought the accession... PM: The British people aren't going to... AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more... AM: [inaudible] PM: ...that way [conversation continues]
Yes she says the British people repeatedly. Thanks for confirming I was right. 😃
Do you dispute the transcription as rendered above? Because in that clip she doesn't say the British People do or don't do anything.
Can you pls transcribe (in lieu of me having to listen to it myself) the actual part she says the British People in the way which would categorically prove your point.
From the transcript: The British people aren't going to...
Comments
I wonder if we should be clearer about Turkey not joining the EU - the supposed doubt around it (when there really isn't any) - is being used by the Outers as an example of why the risks of staying in are greater, opening the back door to the most unstable part of the world, and allowing floods of immigrants to come in.
DC says it's not going to happen, but it's hard to be categoric for diplomatic reasons. Anyway, 'France need to have a referendum before they get in - so it's no going to happen.'
If the Remainer had had a spine, they could have nipped the Turkey issue in the bud.
I'm sure I detected a slight tremor in the trouser department in the lead up to the final of the 2020 Euros, sadly snuffed out in a paroxysm of anti-woke rage and sublimated racism.
We will vote in the government, whose policies we disagree with.
Well if your journey is typical perhaps people really are as confused as this suggests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Artist's impression below.
https://twitter.com/askhistorians/status/1668212572921683969?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ
There was even a big set-piece meeting about it, the week after the referendum, and it was the build-up to this meeting that brought the issue to the front of the campaign in its final days.
This is actually a good piece on the issues, despite the source. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1324218/david-cameron-lying-about-turkey-joining-eu-as-talks-will-take-place-just-days-after-referendum/
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
"Sturgeon is the first former FM or PM to be arrested in the history of the UK, since Salmond. They're the first former or current leaders of a major party to be arrested since Thorpe in the 70s. She's the first SNP MSP to be arrested since Wed 19 April."
Turkey didn't even do that. Again, look at the lack of progress in the Acquis Communautaire over decades.
The problem is that 'joining' gives the impression that it is near-to certain. I'd be happier with 'may be joining'. But 'joining' is simply a lie.
When was the General Election where the voters were given a say over the Lisbon Treaty?
At the 2005 General Election voters gave an overwhelming majority to parties saying there should be a referendum before the EU Constitution was passed. Parliament did otherwise.
Turkey's application has in fact gone backwards since 2006.
I am also still working, and a dispute with a company that has gone on for a few weeks and is costing a £small-admittedly amount of money isn't something I can be bothered to fight any further. It isn't in the scheme of things worth my time or stress.
Wonder what other barriers might suddenly be moveable...?
Governments go against their manifestos or do actions they weren't elected to do, without consulting the voters, all the freaking time.
Mordaunt was entirely and factually correct. Unambiguously correct.
He found it, eventually....
It's all democratic. Not every dot and comma of a manifesto is followed, as well we know.
He might have perhaps have clung on - the especially chaotic Trussian aftermath and Sunakian restoration could well have made it even worse, but still only happened because he was such a mess in the first place.
Advertising spend is way off in the last few months, I’ve heard of creators on Youtube getting cut 50% for example.
Everyone is trying to find new sources of revenue, whether it’s charging customers directly (as Twitter is doing) or charging for ‘business-to-business’ API access (as Reddit is doing). The problem Reddit has, is that much of the API stuff is done by individuals and small organisations, who can’t afford to pay commercial rates.
In 2010 David Cameron couldn't reverse the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
The only way out was to Leave. Which we did.
Let me rephrase one of your lines:
"It's difficult to imagine any British government, a government that was elected democratically at a general election, doing it..."
That's how democratic politics works. We vote for a government that then does things.
He told Ms Mordaunt: "The British government does have a veto on Turkey joining so we don't have to let them join."
She replied: "No, it doesn't. We are not going to be able to have a say."
The British voters would not get a say. The government would, and the government had a policy, and it would not be giving the voters a choice on the matter.
Try listening to what she actually said. She was explicitly clear that the voters would not get a say.
The final Conservative poll rating with gold standard Survation before Johnson resigned in July 2022 was 35%, the latest Conservative poll rating with Survation is 28%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
So, moving on, does anyone have a favourite Ode of Horace by any chance, or a plan to reopen Riccarton Junction?
Or, the voters really don't care enough about capital punishment to alter their vote in any way.
Only in a post-Brexit sovereign democracy can the policies be reversed.
Within the EU, once the ratchet was turned the UK had no say in reversing it unilaterally.
Literally about 2 seconds after your timestamp. 🤦♂️
Form over substance - Chucky 3 sticks.
Substance over form - Parliament.
The reality is that Penny Mordaunt is probably the only person currently on the Tory front bench who might (and I am saying might) have the electoral appeal to deliver us from having two terms of anti-business nanny-stateism from Starmer.
For that reason I quite like her and you fear her.
Can you believe that there are people out there who think and thought we were never able to, or were not allowed by some unseen force throw ourselves off the cliff.
Boris Johnson: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish. To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac - but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality”
2. Is the delay because he hasn't applied or because the CofE hasn't approved it?
3. Will he be an MP when the Standards Committee publish?
PM: No, it doesn't, uh, we are not going to be able to, so the British People...
AM: I thought... I thought the accession...
PM: The British people aren't going to...
AM: ...was something that each country could veto... if it wanted to
PM: [shaking head] No. We.. we... I do not think that the EU is going to... umm... keep Turkey out. I think it going to join, I think the migrant crisis it pushing it more...
AM: [inaudible]
PM: ...that way
[conversation continues]
Let me break it to you. Johnson is shit. He is a liar. And if Labour win the next two elections it is the fault of Johnson and naïve gullible fools like you who are unable to see the reality and continue to mindlessly support him and find more and more incredulous ways to apologise for him
Although why Rishi was supposed to do a favour for Boris is beyond me.
I think this is essentially a non-issue.
Watford was not Conservative held in 1997, Uxbridge was. Watford was only 50% Leave, Hillingdon was 56% Leave. The Tories also held Hillingdon council last year even if they don't control Watford council.
Even then the Tory voteshare in Watford in the local elections was down just 2% on last year whereas nationally the Tory vote was down 4% on 2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Watford_Borough_Council_election
Maybe this half-baked law is an under-recognised aspect of Nick Clegg's contribution.
Either way, the question of Turkish membership is not what swung the referendum and the continuing focus on it is bizarre. If you go over any past election campaign with a fine-tooth comb, you'll find comparable examples, but people normally accept the result and move on.
Can you pls transcribe (in lieu of me having to listen to it myself) the actual part she says the British People in the way which would categorically prove your point.
Supposedly none of them have formally resigned to the Chancellor yet so they can't go to the Chiltern Hundreds today.
Which may be awkward for Bozo because it means there is a fair chance the committee reports before he goes.
There's rumour that Charlotte Owen- the 29 year old advisor Boris Johnson gave a peerage to might be his daughter from an affair during his first marriage.
For Reddit, Twitter and the like, to paraphrase Logan Roy, "You are not serious advertising platforms". The reason so many advertisers were easily able to bin Twitter off the marketing plan after Musk started his titting about is that it's not, nor ever has been, that good a place to advertise. Ditto Reddit, but for different reasons - and long-term I can see it seriously struggling. Already a lot of Reddit groups have largely moved to Discord because it offers better functionality (and also privacy).
One of the reasons I kind of take the announcement by Meta of a Twitter-like service moderately seriously is that they have a pre-existing infrastructure that will dovetail well with a new service (unlike, say Parler or Mastodon), and they offer a good proposition to advertisers.
Indeed I think Hindus could well overtake Jews and Anglicans to become the highest Conservative voting religious group in the UK at the general election next year
That supposedly none of them have gone suggests its more on Hunt than them, but who knows?
The first part of what she says is clearly wrong. I won't call it a lie if it hadn't been followed up with a second "no" because they way she switches to "the British people", basically interrupting herself, means, I think, that she knew she was wrong/lying and wanted to try to say something truthful instead. But she said something wrong, and then repeated the mistake or lie straight afterwards when she give a flat and reasonably forceful "no" to Marr's question.
Anybody who is interested, don't take my word for it. Watch the clip. But my twopenneth is I think she wanted to make the point about the British people but fell into a lie in the heat of the moment when AM asked about the "wrong" thing.
As none of them are that competent I would assume the screwup is at the Bozo / Nadine / Adams end.
- Privileges report due in next 48 hours
- MPs' vote in the middle of next week
- Labour MPs might amend motion to add in a permanent ban from Commons. Johnson's team say this is not possible
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1668251755975528452/photo/1
The claim that Turkey was joining the EU was a kind of lie. Who cares about the semantics, the reality was they were not joining any time soon.
It wasn’t the worst kind of lie. In fact, I’d argue it falls into the species of half-truth that is common in US political debate but less so in the UK (see below). It practice, it cleverly pinpointed an obfuscation and hypocrisy on the Remain side.
Cameron, as noted upthread, was too feeble to rebut the point properly.
The main issue with the claim was the unfortunate racist undertone. Previously, such claims would not have been considered acceptable within the tacit consensus governing British political discourse.
Leave specialised in these not-quite-lies with a racist flavour. Remain never saw it coming.
We have: Inherited traditional monarch, who over time has submitted powers to parliament, and whose identity is determined by Act of Parliament.
Parliament: Where the HoC is clearly supreme over HoL, but whose acts require monarch's signature. No-one knows what happens if refused.
SC: Who can reverse its own past decisions, has theoretically unlimited powers, and therefore could (but never has) decide to overturn an Act of Parliament (?the Torturing Children for Fun: Legalisation Of Act 2025). A useful safety net.
The army. Whose loyalty is to crown not government, and who, in extremis, probably has more common sense than the rest put together.
These things happen in conversations, I call the first one a "mis-speak" and the second one a lie because by then you can see her brain has caught up with her mouth and she knows what she's saying is wrong. Mens rea is there. It was a lie.
Actually the word "sovereignty" much loved of those who don't understand the term might do it, due to the number of syllables:
God save our sov-er-ignty, long live our sov-er-ignty, long may it stay
Send it victorious, happ-ily boring us,
Long to-oo confuse all of us
God save our Thing
Don’t pick a fight with yet another forum member over something that doesn’t really matter