💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
How much are we allowed to say about the alleged parentage of Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993)? Twitter people have put a good case for her being the daughter of two specific people, but Twitter is a bullshit farm and Ms. Owen is a real person. I'm a bit uncomfortable about speculation about a living breathing person and I need to know what the boundaries are here.
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...
Does anyone really care though? Turkey won't be joining the EU next year and Brexit will probably destroy the Tory party anyway, so at best she was honest, wrong and stupid. That's all you have I'm afraid.
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.
She does correct herself, she says sorry the British people. The word sorry has been omitted from your transcript.
Listen again at your own chosen timepoint. She's very clear though she mis-speaks at one point and corrects herself clearly saying sorry the British people. She said the British people repeatedly through that interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxSz4levAxc&t=96s
One strength (for what it’s worth) of the US system is they have multiple elites. There is cross-over, but a certain separation between say the tech elite of SF, and the media elite of New York.
In the UK, there’s essentially one elite, who all go to the same schools, spring from the same class, live in West or North London, and indeed tend to be related.
The media-political nexus seems closer in the UK than anywhere else in the world, with Boris a kind of apotheosis.
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.
Yes we are. *Everyone* in Turkey was set to move to YOUR town the day after they joined the EU. The Nigel told us so, must be true.
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...
This is what you said she said:
"She repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view."
"The British people aren't going to..." doesn't sound anything like that.
Is Boris Johnson an ally to those wishing to reform/abolish/replace the House of Lords?
What more could he do to move its reform up the priority list of an incoming government than to make a series of absurd appointments to the body, sinking it further into a morass of ill-repute?
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
You keep apologising mate, if it makes you feel better. He has fucked the brand
@stellacreasy The average prison sentence for a violent offence in England is 18 months. A woman who had an abortion without following correct procedures just got 28 months under an 1868 act- we need urgent reform to make safe access for all women in England, Scotland and wales a human right.
Here's what the "without following correct procedures" means in reality:
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.
The English Civil War and Glorious Revolution ensured no monarch would ever veto an Act passed by Parliament (certainly not unless polls showed it was hugely unpopular and most British people backed the monarch).
Statute law passed by Parliament and signed by the King constitutionally always overrules judge made law, so the SC can never overturn an Act of Parliament signed into law.
The army technically is now under the command of the Defence Secretary and Ministry of Defence day to day but yes in a conflict between Monarch and government Monarch would prevail
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
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.
To be honest, this is all in the realms of fantasy from a couple of political journos who know enough to come up with a conspiracy theory, but not enough to actually inform anyone.
The MPs resigned on Friday (Saturday for Adams) and there is a bit of tedious formal paperwork to do at HM Treasury to publish the notices of appointments of new stewards and bailiffs of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern and the Manor of Northstead respectively. That's all totally normal.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
It would be utterly undemocratic to impose a permanent suspension on anyone.
The media reports surrounding the committee in recent days have gone completely off the deep end, from suggesting permanent bans to suspending people who merely criticise the committee. Complete banana republic stuff.
The public chooses who they elect. Boris is never going to be elected ever again. In some bizarre parallel universe where he did, that's the voters choice, and must be respected.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
Only if the DUP and SF also vote with the Opposition and those 40 also would risk deselection as party candidates by their local Associations
One strength (for what it’s worth) of the US system is they have multiple elites. There is cross-over, but a certain separation between say the tech elite of SF, and the media elite of New York.
In the UK, there’s essentially one elite, who all go to the same schools, spring from the same class, live in West or North London, and indeed tend to be related.
The media-political nexus seems closer in the UK than anywhere else in the world, with Boris a kind of apotheosis.
Perhaps one drawback of devolution is that it nationalised the alternative elites that did exist outide England.
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.
I agree with all that! Can't we just all accept that Turkey is, very loosely, technically joining the EU, but has about as much chance of it happening anytime soon as me getting (and accepting) a life peerage. Like Johnson's career, it's time to move on.
The SNP have created a corrupt fiefdom in Scotland, essentially politicising and suborning the Scottish civil service.
Welsh Labour have done something similar (likely worse) in Wales.
It’s not quite that bad in Westminster, as the civil service remain largely apolitical, but Boris and the Tories gave it a bloody good try.
They seem to have lost, hence ongoing moans about the Blob.
As someone astute pointed out on Twitter, one problem for the Tories moving forward is that no actual educated or professional person of any substance is likely to be Tory-sympathetic any time soon, in part of because of the intellectual poverty of the Tory project, and in part because of the polling demographics.
That makes it very hard for a Tory government to get anything done, really.
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.
I agree! Can't we just all accept that Turkey is, very loosely, technically joining the EU, but has about as much chance of it happening anytime soon as me getting (and accepting) a life peerage. Like Johnson's career, its time to move on.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
Only requires them to be away on the day in question easy to do if you schedule the debate for a Monday / Friday...
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.
Let's revisit Turkey's membership after Sir Keir has restored free movement and the EU admits Turkey with us not able to veto it.
One strength (for what it’s worth) of the US system is they have multiple elites. There is cross-over, but a certain separation between say the tech elite of SF, and the media elite of New York.
In the UK, there’s essentially one elite, who all go to the same schools, spring from the same class, live in West or North London, and indeed tend to be related.
The media-political nexus seems closer in the UK than anywhere else in the world, with Boris a kind of apotheosis.
Perhaps one drawback of devolution is that it nationalised the alternative elites that did exist outide England.
See my next point. Devolution is obviously not a success in that sense.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
It would be utterly undemocratic to impose a permanent suspension on anyone.
The media reports surrounding the committee in recent days have gone completely off the deep end, from suggesting permanent bans to suspending people who merely criticise the committee. Complete banana republic stuff.
The public chooses who they elect. Boris is never going to be elected ever again. In some bizarre parallel universe where he did, that's the voters choice, and must be respected.
Quite
If the Commons start imposing life bans on membership of the Commons by majority vote in the Commons - what could possibly go wrong?
A very good idea is to consider what could happen if the worst conceivable person uses the precedent or law you are creating for their own ends.
Anyway, this Charlotte Owen peerage thingy. Who is she, and what has she done in her exceptionally brief political career to warrant her seat on the gravy train?
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.
Let's revisit Turkey's membership after Sir Keir has restored free movement and the EU admits Turkey with us not able to veto it.
Unlikely while Erdogan is in charge (possibly for life).
Anyway, this Charlotte Owen peerage thingy. Who is she, and what has she done in her exceptionally brief political career to warrant her seat on the gravy train?
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.
While the speculation is understandable given...:
a) Spaffer's undoubted talent for impregnation, likely in inverse proportion to his aptitude for parenting b) his track record of contempt for institutions, traditions and propriety in general c) his predecessors' similar barefacedry in ennobling chums, cronies, patrons and creditors d) CO's lack of experience and prominence making for a bit of a weird pick anyway
...I'd still want to see more evidence than the coincidence of half a surname and a possible age correlation. I'm not saying it's not fishier than a Grimbarian's oilskins - but it could well be something else (more likely, I'd guess, something whips'-officey).
The SNP have created a corrupt fiefdom in Scotland, essentially politicising and suborning the Scottish civil service.
Welsh Labour have done something similar (likely worse) in Wales.
It’s not quite that bad in Westminster, as the civil service remain largely apolitical, but Boris and the Tories gave it a bloody good try.
They seem to have lost, hence ongoing moans about the Blob.
As someone astute pointed out on Twitter, one problem for the Tories moving forward is that no actual educated or professional person of any substance is likely to be Tory-sympathetic any time soon, in part of because of the intellectual poverty of the Tory project, and in part because of the polling demographics.
That makes it very hard for a Tory government to get anything done, really.
34% of graduates still voted for Boris in 2019 and 40% of those earning over £70k a year voted Conservative in 2019.
💥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
Not going to happen and, if it did, I'd be the first to say it was appalling - and I cannot stand Johnson.
He's done easily enough to merit a Commons suspension and, had he stayed, trigger a recall petition and by-election (in which, let's not forget, he'd be perfectly entitled to stand).
He's not done a Trump and led a violent mob to the seat of government. He's not committed a criminal offence meriting a lengthy term of imprisonment as far as anyone is aware.
As such, if voters in some godforsaken constituency are stupid enough to elect him as an MP again at some later date, then I'll be personally disappointed but that's democracy.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
Only if the DUP and SF also vote with the Opposition and those 40 also would risk deselection as party candidates by their local Associations
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.
Let's revisit Turkey's membership after Sir Keir has restored free movement and the EU admits Turkey with us not able to veto it.
Unlikely while Erdogan is in charge (possibly for life).
I think it fair to say that Erdogan got a boost from being able to say "You want to be part of Europe - but they will never accept you. Look at what they are saying in country X, within the EU, about Turkish accession."
💥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
Not going to happen and, if it did, I'd be the first to say it was appalling - and I cannot stand Johnson.
He's done easily enough to merit a Commons suspension and, had he stayed, trigger a recall petition and by-election (in which, let's not forget, he'd be perfectly entitled to stand).
He's not done a Trump and led a violent mob to the seat of government. He's not committed a criminal offence meriting a lengthy term of imprisonment as far as anyone is aware.
As such, if voters in some godforsaken constituency are stupid enough to elect him as an MP again at some later date, then I'll be personally disappointed but that's democracy.
I agree with this entirely and I, like you, loathe the man. Kicking him out is one thing, but a lifetime ban is something else.
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.
'More common sense than the rest put together'? ... Hmm, not sure about this. TOPPING used to be in the army.
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
💥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
Not going to happen and, if it did, I'd be the first to say it was appalling - and I cannot stand Johnson.
He's done easily enough to merit a Commons suspension and, had he stayed, trigger a recall petition and by-election (in which, let's not forget, he'd be perfectly entitled to stand).
He's not done a Trump and led a violent mob to the seat of government. He's not committed a criminal offence meriting a lengthy term of imprisonment as far as anyone is aware.
As such, if voters in some godforsaken constituency are stupid enough to elect him as an MP again at some later date, then I'll be personally disappointed but that's democracy.
I agree with this entirely and I, like you, loathe the man. Kicking him out is one thing, but a lifetime ban is something else.
It's funny but the whole point of the recall is that it doesn't stop someone from being re-elected as MP it just forces them to stand for election and win the majority of votes from the electorate.
Is banning Shagger for life any more "undemocratic" than having, say, an unelected Upper Chamber stuffed with political has-beens, or as in the case of young Charlotte, political never-beens?
💥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
Not going to happen and, if it did, I'd be the first to say it was appalling - and I cannot stand Johnson.
He's done easily enough to merit a Commons suspension and, had he stayed, trigger a recall petition and by-election (in which, let's not forget, he'd be perfectly entitled to stand).
He's not done a Trump and led a violent mob to the seat of government. He's not committed a criminal offence meriting a lengthy term of imprisonment as far as anyone is aware.
As such, if voters in some godforsaken constituency are stupid enough to elect him as an MP again at some later date, then I'll be personally disappointed but that's democracy.
I agree with this entirely and I, like you, loathe the man. Kicking him out is one thing, but a lifetime ban is something else.
Even Corbyn hasn't got a lifetime ban from Parliament, he can still stand as and Independent next year even though Labour stopped him standing again for them over the anti Semitism report
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.
The English Civil War and Glorious Revolution ensured no monarch would ever veto an Act passed by Parliament (certainly not unless polls showed it was hugely unpopular and most British people backed the monarch).
Statute law passed by Parliament and signed by the King constitutionally always overrules judge made law, so the SC can never overturn an Act of Parliament signed into law.
The army technically is now under the command of the Defence Secretary and Ministry of Defence day to day but yes in a conflict between Monarch and government Monarch would prevail
Slightly over generalised. In particular, there is no modern test of what would happen if a monarch declined to sign. The matter is undecided.
Secondly, the SC has no fetters on its powers in the sense that it can overturn its own decisions and in popular terms 'make its own law'. Obviously a philosophical debate lies at the heart of this: do judges (including SC) decide, declare or make the law and in what degree. At the moment the old Denning (he is as out of fashion as it is possible to be ATM, for quite good reasons) doctrine that the doing of justice trumps systems, precedent and certainty is on the wane big time, but his tradition is still in the history books.
IMHO the answer to the question: Would the SC overturn Acts of Parliament if necessary to save civil order from barbarism? is Yes.
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.
Hence "God Save Da King", rather than "God Save The British People".
Interesting thought...if we become a republic, what happens to the dirge aka national anthem?
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
We will never be a republic.
However I do think GSTK should be the UK anthem and the anthem for events the monarch attends, Jerusalem should be the English anthem as the other home nations and Commonwealth realms have their own anthems for sporting events
Is banning Shagger for life any more "undemocratic" than having, say, an unelected Upper Chamber stuffed with political has-beens, or as in the case of young Charlotte, political never-beens?
Think of the fun you could have with this. First order of business on winning by one MP is to ban the opposition for life.....
It is a simple, but good rule - when inventing a law or rule, imagine the worst possible arsehole getting control.
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”
Well I hate to play the man not the ball but does either of them have a proven track record of lying, for instance to their boss or spouse?
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
I suspect Ms Owen is being rewarded for services to Carrie Johnson.
I don’t put much stock in the idea she had an affair with Boris, and there is zero credibility in the motion she is related to him.
I think her appointment to the House of Lords is ridiculous enough on the basis of the known facts.
It speaks ill of our times that this is not enough for people to focus on, and instead there's a scramble for some additional explanation - she's a love-child, mistress, etc - with a complete absence of any evidence whatsoever. This sort of conspiratorial thinking is really not at all helpful.
In some respects it makes the whole charade okay, in the sense that it creates the idea that if she isn't Johnson's child or mistress that there would be nothing to object to in her absurd appointment.
💥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
Not going to happen and, if it did, I'd be the first to say it was appalling - and I cannot stand Johnson.
He's done easily enough to merit a Commons suspension and, had he stayed, trigger a recall petition and by-election (in which, let's not forget, he'd be perfectly entitled to stand).
He's not done a Trump and led a violent mob to the seat of government. He's not committed a criminal offence meriting a lengthy term of imprisonment as far as anyone is aware.
As such, if voters in some godforsaken constituency are stupid enough to elect him as an MP again at some later date, then I'll be personally disappointed but that's democracy.
I agree with this entirely and I, like you, loathe the man. Kicking him out is one thing, but a lifetime ban is something else.
It's funny but the whole point of the recall is that it doesn't stop someone from being re-elected as MP it just forces them to stand for election and win the majority of votes from the electorate.
This - the reason that that the recall system felt so right when it was enacted was it said that, for an offence above the threshold, the *voters* got to judge the MP in question.
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.
She does correct herself, she says sorry the British people. The word sorry has been omitted from your transcript.
Listen again at your own chosen timepoint. She's very clear though she mis-speaks at one point and corrects herself clearly saying sorry the British people. She said the British people repeatedly through that interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxSz4levAxc&t=96s
I transcribed it as "so". It's hard to tell exactly what word. I was swithering between "so" and "I say". I listened to it a few more times and it doesn't sound like "sorry" to me, but others can judge for themselves.
In any case, what you've said does fit with by interpretation. I think the first "no" was her mis-speaking. It was an untruth because she was trying to make a point that was different to what Marr was asking, but in the jumble of a conversation that sort of thing happens, because planning what you're trying to say takes a beat and the other person can blurt a question in that time that you can't react to because you're mid-train. But he re-asks in a clearer way, and PM answers very clearly "No", and that's a lie.
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.
Hence "God Save Da King", rather than "God Save The British People".
Interesting thought...if we become a republic, what happens to the dirge aka national anthem?
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
We will never be a republic.
However I do think GSTK should be the UK anthem and the anthem for events the monarch attends, Jerusalem should be the English anthem as the other home nations and Commonwealth realms have their own anthems for sporting events
Why God save the King, and not the rest of us plebs?
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”
Well I hate to play the man not the ball but does either of them have a proven track record of lying, for instance to their boss or spouse?
...The army technically is now under the command of the Defence Secretary and Ministry of Defence day to day...
That used to be true (and definitely was in Churchill's day, which is why he made himself Minister for War as well as PM), but I think Cameron, when he created the National Security Council, blurred the lines a bit. Do I understand correctly?
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.
Let's revisit Turkey's membership after Sir Keir has restored free movement and the EU admits Turkey with us not able to veto it.
Unlikely while Erdogan is in charge (possibly for life).
I think it fair to say that Erdogan got a boost from being able to say "You want to be part of Europe - but they will never accept you. Look at what they are saying in country X, within the EU, about Turkish accession."
Which is why it was utter prickmanship for Vote Leave to raise Turkey as a campaign issue, even if you think there was a reading of their message that was technically true.
There was a forceful rebuttal- basically Dave loudly saying "yes there are talks but only an idiot would think they're going anywhere". But to say that would make life worse for people in other countries, which is why diplomats choose to be diplomatic about the whole thing.
But hey, all's fair in love, war and referendum campaigns, isn't it?
I was intrigued as to what Peers get for attending Westminster. I opened up the pdf for November '22 and it comes as quite a shock. Firstly loads of them either didn't turn up or put only a couple of days in. It sat for 18 days, and it looks like you can pocket about 5 grand for putting in the full monty in just the daily allowance, although peers who have put in the same number of days seem to vary in daily allowance claimed. So if young Charlotte plays her cards right, she could take home a couple of grand a month for doing not a lot. Now, I know 2 grand is chicken feed to most of them, but my take home pay when I retired was under 1800 a month. The place wants subjecting to the Ripley Doctrine, then start from scratch.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
It would be utterly undemocratic to impose a permanent suspension on anyone.
The media reports surrounding the committee in recent days have gone completely off the deep end, from suggesting permanent bans to suspending people who merely criticise the committee. Complete banana republic stuff.
The public chooses who they elect. Boris is never going to be elected ever again. In some bizarre parallel universe where he did, that's the voters choice, and must be respected.
"Would-be insurgent parties of the right, Reform UK and Reclaim, have announced a pact for the upcoming by-elections in which they will allow each other a free one in the contests.
Reclaim’s leader and founder, Laurence Fox, will stand in Boris Johnson’s seat of Uxbridge while Dave Holland, managing director of an IT marketing company, will stand in Mid Bedfordshire, which is being vacated by Nadine Dorries."
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.
We can take a guess what happens if the signature was refused - parliament declares it doesn't need a signature after all. Last time it took another 11-12 years for that to be called illegal.
💥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
Not going to happen and, if it did, I'd be the first to say it was appalling - and I cannot stand Johnson.
He's done easily enough to merit a Commons suspension and, had he stayed, trigger a recall petition and by-election (in which, let's not forget, he'd be perfectly entitled to stand).
He's not done a Trump and led a violent mob to the seat of government. He's not committed a criminal offence meriting a lengthy term of imprisonment as far as anyone is aware.
As such, if voters in some godforsaken constituency are stupid enough to elect him as an MP again at some later date, then I'll be personally disappointed but that's democracy.
I agree with this entirely and I, like you, loathe the man. Kicking him out is one thing, but a lifetime ban is something else.
It's funny but the whole point of the recall is that it doesn't stop someone from being re-elected as MP it just forces them to stand for election and win the majority of votes from the electorate.
This - the reason that that the recall system felt so right when it was enacted was it said that, for an offence above the threshold, the *voters* got to judge the MP in question.
I agree with our friend from Romford. This is about whether Johnson gets a pass to visit the Palace of Westminster as a non-MP. It wouldn't ban him from standing for election, being elected, and serving as an MP if a constituency elected him as their representative.
People are completely overreacting to someone on twitter misunderstanding something, or being a bit unclear.
Tesla's Autopilot system has been involved in more than 700 crashes in the US since 2019, including 17 fatalities, far more than previously reported, according to regulators."
I was intrigued as to what Peers get for attending Westminster. I opened up the pdf for November '22 and it comes as quite a shock. Firstly loads of them either didn't turn up or put only a couple of days in. It sat for 18 days, and it looks like you can pocket about 5 grand for putting in the full monty in just the daily allowance, although peers who have put in the same number of days seem to vary in daily allowance claimed. So if young Charlotte plays her cards right, she could take home a couple of grand a month for doing not a lot. Now, I know 2 grand is chicken feed to most of them, but my take home pay when I retired was under 1800 a month. The place wants subjecting to the Ripley Doctrine, then start from scratch.
Back before Blair massively raised the threshold for buying a peerage, I rather sardonically worked out that as a pension, a peerage was really good value.
Donate a few thousand pounds a year for a decade to a political party, get a few hundred a day for rocking up at Westminster for life.
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
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.
Hence "God Save Da King", rather than "God Save The British People".
Interesting thought...if we become a republic, what happens to the dirge aka national anthem?
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
We will never be a republic.
However I do think GSTK should be the UK anthem and the anthem for events the monarch attends, Jerusalem should be the English anthem as the other home nations and Commonwealth realms have their own anthems for sporting events
Why God save the King, and not the rest of us plebs?
Stupid "national" "anthem".
Prayer for the king is not equivalent to anti-prayer for all other excellent causes such as the saving of plebs like Sunil and me.
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.
Hence "God Save Da King", rather than "God Save The British People".
Interesting thought...if we become a republic, what happens to the dirge aka national anthem?
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
Land of Hope & Glory is OK.
Rule Britannia too un-woke. Jerusalem too pretentious!
A pity I Vow To Thee, My Country is too religious as well (and rather problematic with the whole “For King and Country” sacrifice vibe). The music is basically nabbed from the best bit of Jupiter by Holst. Wonderfully stirring.
How much are we allowed to say about the alleged parentage of Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993)? Twitter people have put a good case for her being the daughter of two specific people, but Twitter is a bullshit farm and Ms. Owen is a real person. I'm a bit uncomfortable about speculation about a living breathing person and I need to know what the boundaries are here.
Wait for a reputable UK news source.
As we learned from Sally Bercow and Lord McAlpine, Twitter is a cesspool that costs people money.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
For one I think you overestimate the power of Boris loyalists, even to be wreckers.
For two it would be a stunt - parliament can basically do what it wants but that would be disproportionate and unfair. If tried it would be to embarrass the PM to defend Boris.
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.
We can take a guess what happens if the signature was refused - parliament declares it doesn't need a signature after all. Last time it took another 11-12 years for that to be called illegal.
Yes, perhaps. Taking a guess is exactly right: that's what we do when no-one knows.
How much are we allowed to say about the alleged parentage of Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993)? Twitter people have put a good case for her being the daughter of two specific people, but Twitter is a bullshit farm and Ms. Owen is a real person. I'm a bit uncomfortable about speculation about a living breathing person and I need to know what the boundaries are here.
Wait for a reputable UK news source.
As we learned from Sally Bercow and Lord McAlpine, Twitter is a cesspool that costs people money.
As we learned from Sally Bercow and Lord McAlpine, Twitter is a cesspool that costs people money.
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
The Watford result was not 2% down. It was 11% down. It matches the approx 10% drop in the national polling between 2022 and 2023 the Tories have suffered.
You mean it was 2.1pp down. A 2.1pp drop is only a 2.1% drop if you got 100% of the vote last time. I know you know this, so I think you're trying to mislead people.
As for your point about the areas voting Leave/Remain whatever, THAT is the shaft of sunlight I want you to step into. If you think there are OTHER reasons why people might be more positive about the Conservatives then fine, those arguments can be assessed separately. I'm ONLY objecting to your idea that an 8.6% Hindu population is some positive-only previously untapped goldmine for Sunak. The more you look at the numbers the more idiotic the idea sounds.
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
Maybe those strange brown Hindu people are like other human beings, though, and make up their own minds how to vote, rather than automatically preferring "one of their own kind".
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.
People voted for a party that told us we would get asked whether to ratify lisbon, remind me how that turned out when the politicians realised we would probably say no.
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
Maybe those strange brown Hindu people are like other human beings, though, and make up their own minds how to vote, rather than automatically preferring "one of their own kind".
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
The Watford result was not 2% down. It was 11% down. It matches the approx 10% drop in the national polling between 2022 and 2023 the Tories have suffered.
You mean it was 2.1pp down. A 2.1pp drop is only a 2.1% drop if you got 100% of the vote last time. I know you know this, so I think you're trying to mislead people.
As for your point about the areas voting Leave/Remain whatever, THAT is the shaft of sunlight I want you to step into. If you think there are OTHER reasons why people might be more positive about the Conservatives then fine, those arguments can be assessed separately. I'm ONLY objecting to your idea that an 8.6% Hindu population is some positive-only previously untapped goldmine for Sunak. The more you look at the numbers the more idiotic the idea sounds.
The Tory voteshare was 17.5% this year in the local elections in Watford and 19.6% last year, so down just 2% in terms of the local vote compared to the NEV nationally where the Tory vote was down 4% on last year from 30% to 26% of the national vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Watford_Borough_Council_election
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
Maybe those strange brown Hindu people are like other human beings, though, and make up their own minds how to vote, rather than automatically preferring "one of their own kind".
Because comparing your policy positions to that of Boris Johnson's right now is a smart thing, politically, actually....
Interesting site. It's obvious SKS is coming close to crossing the line between having to keep the Leaver/Lefties on board and the racist hang 'em flog 'em disillusioned Tories.
I for one am getting a little worried about his values. Whatever you thought of Blair/Brown I always felt their instincts were mine. I'm no longer sure that's the case with Starmer
I don't know if Starmer really believes anything other than the importance of institutions - he is a lawyer who seems to see everything through the prism of respecting the office / station / institution of things and anything that those institutions deem "unserious" or "disrespectful" he will too. So all of his positions are about how to make people feel that institutions are serious again (after the "unseriousness" of Johnson, Truss and Corbyn) and his benchmark for seriousness is whatever the consensus of the national papers is. That's why he talked to Mumsnet activists about trans people, but not trans charities. It's why he made arguments to win the leadership and later reneged on them, because the left wing labour base aren't "serious" people in political discourse in this country - it's fine to lie to them but you can't ever suggest that the rich white people who claim working class white people are upset that non-white people have rights may be racist. It's why renationalisation and even further price caps have been taken off the table despite the fact that a lot of inflation seems to actually be just price gouging and he's starting to sound more like Osbourne on the economy, because Osbournomics is what "sensible" people believe in.
The environment isn't "serious" and the activists aren't "respectful", so who cares if you slash your proposed investment into green energy by 70-80%. But you have to say the Met is salvageable, because you have to respect the police. You have to say that maybe Gillick competence is bad, because that's what lots of serious journalists say, and they couldn't be wrong. You have to say you'd use the nuclear weapons and kill a load of innocent people for the decisions made by the leaders of their state in any situation that involves nuclear weapons - because the serious people say that mutual mass destruction is the only serious position to take.
If anything, Starmer has a deeply conservative strain of preservation of institutions and tradition, many of which should be challenged and need to be challenged.
Interesting but arguing about policy at this point is less important than which of two alternatives you want. Mine is removing this government. If Starmer ever supported the governments Rwanda policy that would be a tipping point and though he's been embarrassingly silent on it I have enough confidence in the majority of Labour MPs to know that'll never happen
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
It would be utterly undemocratic to impose a permanent suspension on anyone.
The media reports surrounding the committee in recent days have gone completely off the deep end, from suggesting permanent bans to suspending people who merely criticise the committee. Complete banana republic stuff.
The public chooses who they elect. Boris is never going to be elected ever again. In some bizarre parallel universe where he did, that's the voters choice, and must be respected.
The public chooses, yes, but there are things which legally prevent a person serving as an MP. One of them is being bankrupt. At present this is just financially but I can see a good case for it to also mean 'morally'. In which case Boris Johnson certainly should be given a lifetime ban. I mean, how come being on your uppers gets you banned from parliament but being morally bankrupt is absolutely fine? It should be the other way around, I'd have thought.
How much are we allowed to say about the alleged parentage of Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993)? Twitter people have put a good case for her being the daughter of two specific people, but Twitter is a bullshit farm and Ms. Owen is a real person. I'm a bit uncomfortable about speculation about a living breathing person and I need to know what the boundaries are here.
Best stick to verifiable facts.
It’s a fact that until 1993 Johnson was married to Allegra Mostyn-Owen.
It’s a fact that Johnson’s mother’s first name was Charlotte.
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.
Hence "God Save Da King", rather than "God Save The British People".
Interesting thought...if we become a republic, what happens to the dirge aka national anthem?
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
Land of Hope & Glory is OK.
Rule Britannia too un-woke. Jerusalem too pretentious!
Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set; God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.
Land of Hope and Glory is far too bombastic and demonstrably we are not setting still wider bounds... While the verses of Rule Britannia are more or less ridiculous. For England, Jerusalem is fine, but it only works for them. Personally I always find I vow to the My Country very sad and strangely stiff upper lip- mourning the world war one war dead.
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.
Hence "God Save Da King", rather than "God Save The British People".
Interesting thought...if we become a republic, what happens to the dirge aka national anthem?
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
Land of Hope & Glory is OK.
Rule Britannia too un-woke. Jerusalem too pretentious!
Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set; God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.
Land of Hope and Glory is far too bombastic and demonstrably we are not setting still wider bounds... While the verses of Rule Britannia are more or less ridiculous. For England, Jerusalem is fine, but it only works for them. Personally I always find I vow to the My Country very sad and strangely stiff upper lip- mourning the world war one war dead.
So keep GSTK as UK anthem and just have Jerusalem as English anthem as I suggested
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
The Watford result was not 2% down. It was 11% down. It matches the approx 10% drop in the national polling between 2022 and 2023 the Tories have suffered.
You mean it was 2.1pp down. A 2.1pp drop is only a 2.1% drop if you got 100% of the vote last time. I know you know this, so I think you're trying to mislead people.
As for your point about the areas voting Leave/Remain whatever, THAT is the shaft of sunlight I want you to step into. If you think there are OTHER reasons why people might be more positive about the Conservatives then fine, those arguments can be assessed separately. I'm ONLY objecting to your idea that an 8.6% Hindu population is some positive-only previously untapped goldmine for Sunak. The more you look at the numbers the more idiotic the idea sounds.
The Tory voteshare was 17.5% this year in the local elections in Watford and 19.6% last year, so down just 2% in terms of the local vote compared to the NEV nationally where the Tory vote was down 4% on last year from 30% to 26% of the national vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Watford_Borough_Council_election
1-(17.5/19.6) = 10.714%
Imagine if the Tories were bumping along 30 points down in the polling from their 2019 result. That would imply their Watford result ought to be MINUS 11%. That's obviously nonsense, and it's the reason why you can't just look at the percentage point drop.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
It would be utterly undemocratic to impose a permanent suspension on anyone.
The media reports surrounding the committee in recent days have gone completely off the deep end, from suggesting permanent bans to suspending people who merely criticise the committee. Complete banana republic stuff.
The public chooses who they elect. Boris is never going to be elected ever again. In some bizarre parallel universe where he did, that's the voters choice, and must be respected.
The public chooses, yes, but there are things which legally prevent a person serving as an MP. One of them is being bankrupt. At present this is just financially but I can see a good case for it to also mean 'morally'. In which case Boris Johnson certainly should be given a lifetime ban. I mean, how come being on your uppers gets you banned from parliament but being morally bankrupt is absolutely fine? It should be the other way around, I'd have thought.
There is nothing to stop even a bankrupt convicted serial killer being elected and serving as US President and most powerful man in the world in the US constitution of course
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?
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.
8.6% vs 8.2%
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
So still higher than Watford then.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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.
Maybe those strange brown Hindu people are like other human beings, though, and make up their own minds how to vote, rather than automatically preferring "one of their own kind".
Whereas I suppose Obama winning the highest percentage of the US African American vote ever in 2008 and second highest ever in 2012 was just their voting for his morally superior policies and character?
How much are we allowed to say about the alleged parentage of Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993)? Twitter people have put a good case for her being the daughter of two specific people, but Twitter is a bullshit farm and Ms. Owen is a real person. I'm a bit uncomfortable about speculation about a living breathing person and I need to know what the boundaries are here.
The boundaries are it's really none of our business. HOLAC makes no judgment on the suitability of those nominated to be peers, but it does have a responsibility otherwise to defend the propriety of the process.
I'm willing to accept their judgment, and merely note that her qualifications for the role look exceedingly thin.
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.
Hence "God Save Da King", rather than "God Save The British People".
Interesting thought...if we become a republic, what happens to the dirge aka national anthem?
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
Land of Hope & Glory is OK.
Rule Britannia too un-woke. Jerusalem too pretentious!
Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set; God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.
Land of Hope and Glory is far too bombastic and demonstrably we are not setting still wider bounds... While the verses of Rule Britannia are more or less ridiculous. For England, Jerusalem is fine, but it only works for them. Personally I always find I vow to the My Country very sad and strangely stiff upper lip- mourning the world war one war dead.
I was intrigued as to what Peers get for attending Westminster. I opened up the pdf for November '22 and it comes as quite a shock. Firstly loads of them either didn't turn up or put only a couple of days in. It sat for 18 days, and it looks like you can pocket about 5 grand for putting in the full monty in just the daily allowance, although peers who have put in the same number of days seem to vary in daily allowance claimed. So if young Charlotte plays her cards right, she could take home a couple of grand a month for doing not a lot. Now, I know 2 grand is chicken feed to most of them, but my take home pay when I retired was under 1800 a month. The place wants subjecting to the Ripley Doctrine, then start from scratch.
Is that the talented Mr Ripley, or the one who goes on about nuking from space ?
The SNP have created a corrupt fiefdom in Scotland, essentially politicising and suborning the Scottish civil service.
Welsh Labour have done something similar (likely worse) in Wales.
It’s not quite that bad in Westminster, as the civil service remain largely apolitical, but Boris and the Tories gave it a bloody good try.
They seem to have lost, hence ongoing moans about the Blob.
As someone astute pointed out on Twitter, one problem for the Tories moving forward is that no actual educated or professional person of any substance is likely to be Tory-sympathetic any time soon, in part of because of the intellectual poverty of the Tory project, and in part because of the polling demographics.
That makes it very hard for a Tory government to get anything done, really.
As you noted, the English/British elite is incredibly narrow and incestuous. Their attacks on "the blob" are generally just an act of projection where they ascribe their own characteristics onto a far wider group of middle class professionals who occasionally thwart their attempts to further their narrow self-interest.
💥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
Would need at least 100 Conservative MPs to vote with the Opposition for it, they would also have to risk deselection by furious Boris loyalists amongst their party Association executive and local membership
Only 40 or so Tory MPs need side with the opposition.
It would be utterly undemocratic to impose a permanent suspension on anyone.
The media reports surrounding the committee in recent days have gone completely off the deep end, from suggesting permanent bans to suspending people who merely criticise the committee. Complete banana republic stuff.
The public chooses who they elect. Boris is never going to be elected ever again. In some bizarre parallel universe where he did, that's the voters choice, and must be respected.
The public chooses, yes, but there are things which legally prevent a person serving as an MP. One of them is being bankrupt. At present this is just financially but I can see a good case for it to also mean 'morally'. In which case Boris Johnson certainly should be given a lifetime ban. I mean, how come being on your uppers gets you banned from parliament but being morally bankrupt is absolutely fine? It should be the other way around, I'd have thought.
I really hope you are joking.
Should Rishi Sunak be allowed to whip his MPs to deem Keir Starmer as "morally bankrupt"?
It's up to the voters and the voters alone to determine their own morals.
Comments
How much are we allowed to say about the alleged parentage of Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993)? Twitter people have put a good case for her being the daughter of two specific people, but Twitter is a bullshit farm and Ms. Owen is a real person. I'm a bit uncomfortable about speculation about a living breathing person and I need to know what the boundaries are here.
Listen again at your own chosen timepoint. She's very clear though she mis-speaks at one point and corrects herself clearly saying sorry the British people. She said the British people repeatedly through that interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxSz4levAxc&t=96s
In the UK, there’s essentially one elite, who all go to the same schools, spring from the same class, live in West or North London, and indeed tend to be related.
The media-political nexus seems closer in the UK than anywhere else in the world, with Boris a kind of apotheosis.
"She repeatedly makes the distinction that the voters would not be given a say in her view."
"The British people aren't going to..." doesn't sound anything like that.
What more could he do to move its reform up the priority list of an incoming government than to make a series of absurd appointments to the body, sinking it further into a morass of ill-repute?
@stellacreasy
The average prison sentence for a violent offence in England is 18 months. A woman who had an abortion without following correct procedures just got 28 months under an 1868 act- we need urgent reform to make safe access for all women in England, Scotland and wales a human right.
Here's what the "without following correct procedures" means in reality:
https://twitter.com/HannahAlOthman/status/1668246803022479363
Judge says that the woman’s “level of culpability is high.”
Says “you knew full well that your pregnancy was beyond the legal limit” and that she “deliberately lied” to procure the drugs.
https://twitter.com/HannahAlOthman/status/1668193242251182080
He tells the court she had made various web searches around concealing a pregnancy and inducing a miscarriage.
It has been determined that the foetus was between 32 and 34 weeks.
Statute law passed by Parliament and signed by the King constitutionally always overrules judge made law, so the SC can never overturn an Act of Parliament signed into law.
The army technically is now under the command of the Defence Secretary and Ministry of Defence day to day but yes in a conflict between Monarch and government Monarch would prevail
The MPs resigned on Friday (Saturday for Adams) and there is a bit of tedious formal paperwork to do at HM Treasury to publish the notices of appointments of new stewards and bailiffs of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern and the Manor of Northstead respectively. That's all totally normal.
The media reports surrounding the committee in recent days have gone completely off the deep end, from suggesting permanent bans to suspending people who merely criticise the committee. Complete banana republic stuff.
The public chooses who they elect. Boris is never going to be elected ever again. In some bizarre parallel universe where he did, that's the voters choice, and must be respected.
Like Johnson's career, it's time to move on.
Welsh Labour have done something similar (likely worse) in Wales.
It’s not quite that bad in Westminster, as the civil service remain largely apolitical, but Boris and the Tories gave it a bloody good try.
They seem to have lost, hence ongoing moans about the Blob.
As someone astute pointed out on Twitter, one problem for the Tories moving forward is that no actual educated or professional person of any substance is likely to be Tory-sympathetic any time soon, in part of because of the intellectual poverty of the Tory project, and in part because of the polling demographics.
That makes it very hard for a Tory government to get anything done, really.
Devolution is obviously not a success in that sense.
If the Commons start imposing life bans on membership of the Commons by majority vote in the Commons - what could possibly go wrong?
A very good idea is to consider what could happen if the worst conceivable person uses the precedent or law you are creating for their own ends.
a) Spaffer's undoubted talent for impregnation, likely in inverse proportion to his aptitude for parenting
b) his track record of contempt for institutions, traditions and propriety in general
c) his predecessors' similar barefacedry in ennobling chums, cronies, patrons and creditors
d) CO's lack of experience and prominence making for a bit of a weird pick anyway
...I'd still want to see more evidence than the coincidence of half a surname and a possible age correlation. I'm not saying it's not fishier than a Grimbarian's oilskins - but it could well be something else (more likely, I'd guess, something whips'-officey).
Plenty of high earning professionals and graduates still vote Conservative, even if a majority of them don't
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
He's done easily enough to merit a Commons suspension and, had he stayed, trigger a recall petition and by-election (in which, let's not forget, he'd be perfectly entitled to stand).
He's not done a Trump and led a violent mob to the seat of government. He's not committed a criminal offence meriting a lengthy term of imprisonment as far as anyone is aware.
As such, if voters in some godforsaken constituency are stupid enough to elect him as an MP again at some later date, then I'll be personally disappointed but that's democracy.
I don’t put much stock in the idea she had an affair with Boris, and there is zero credibility in the motion she is related to him.
Chopper’s record is variable, I’m going to discount this for the moment.
Rule Britannia too un-woke. Jerusalem too pretentious!
That's the equivalent of 80 people. Let's say a sixth off for those who aren't eligible to vote (passport), a quarter off for under-18s, and then a quarter off the remainder for "can vote but won't".
Thirty-eight people.
Now let's say they go from a quarter voting Tory to three quarters voting Tory. Your Sunak Hindu swing is about twenty extra votes.
Now I come back to my question from the weekend. How many of the other 102,000 people in the constituency are 2019 Tory voters who for whatever reason don't want to vote for party lead by a Hindu man. Do you think you can find more or less than TWENTY voters?
If so, you're left with a net deficit due to people voting within racial/religious boundaries.
It might occur to you at this point that there are a great number of other reasons people might shift their vote to or from a party other than religion. If so, please step into that beam of sunlight that's broken through into your weird little psephological dungeon. You'll find that people are better than you suppose.
https://news.sky.com/story/john-bercow-former-speaker-banned-from-parliament-for-life-after-bullying-inquiry-finds-him-guilty-12560483
Basically not getting alumni dining rights.
Secondly, the SC has no fetters on its powers in the sense that it can overturn its own decisions and in popular terms 'make its own law'. Obviously a philosophical debate lies at the heart of this: do judges (including SC) decide, declare or make the law and in what degree. At the moment the old Denning (he is as out of fashion as it is possible to be ATM, for quite good reasons) doctrine that the doing of justice trumps systems, precedent and certainty is on the wane big time, but his tradition is still in the history books.
IMHO the answer to the question: Would the SC overturn Acts of Parliament if necessary to save civil order from barbarism? is Yes.
However I do think GSTK should be the UK anthem and the anthem for events the monarch attends, Jerusalem should be the English anthem as the other home nations and Commonwealth realms have their own anthems for sporting events
It is a simple, but good rule - when inventing a law or rule, imagine the worst possible arsehole getting control.
And you deliberately and completely ignored EVERY other point I made as they don't suit your argument, so I will repeat them below:
'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 ie again down to an above average Hindu vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Watford_Borough_Council_election'
It speaks ill of our times that this is not enough for people to focus on, and instead there's a scramble for some additional explanation - she's a love-child, mistress, etc - with a complete absence of any evidence whatsoever. This sort of conspiratorial thinking is really not at all helpful.
In some respects it makes the whole charade okay, in the sense that it creates the idea that if she isn't Johnson's child or mistress that there would be nothing to object to in her absurd appointment.
In any case, what you've said does fit with by interpretation. I think the first "no" was her mis-speaking. It was an untruth because she was trying to make a point that was different to what Marr was asking, but in the jumble of a conversation that sort of thing happens, because planning what you're trying to say takes a beat and the other person can blurt a question in that time that you can't react to because you're mid-train. But he re-asks in a clearer way, and PM answers very clearly "No", and that's a lie.
Stupid "national" "anthem".
There was a forceful rebuttal- basically Dave loudly saying "yes there are talks but only an idiot would think they're going anywhere". But to say that would make life worse for people in other countries, which is why diplomats choose to be diplomatic about the whole thing.
But hey, all's fair in love, war and referendum campaigns, isn't it?
Firstly loads of them either didn't turn up or put only a couple of days in. It sat for 18 days, and it looks like you can pocket about 5 grand for putting in the full monty in just the daily allowance, although peers who have put in the same number of days seem to vary in daily allowance claimed.
So if young Charlotte plays her cards right, she could take home a couple of grand a month for doing not a lot. Now, I know 2 grand is chicken feed to most of them, but my take home pay when I retired was under 1800 a month.
The place wants subjecting to the Ripley Doctrine, then start from scratch.
"Would-be insurgent parties of the right, Reform UK and Reclaim, have announced a pact for the upcoming by-elections in which they will allow each other a free one in the contests.
Reclaim’s leader and founder, Laurence Fox, will stand in Boris Johnson’s seat of Uxbridge while Dave Holland, managing director of an IT marketing company, will stand in Mid Bedfordshire, which is being vacated by Nadine Dorries."
People are completely overreacting to someone on twitter misunderstanding something, or being a bit unclear.
"17 die in crashes with self-driving Tesla
Tesla's Autopilot system has been involved in more than 700 crashes in the US since 2019, including 17 fatalities, far more than previously reported, according to regulators."
Donate a few thousand pounds a year for a decade to a political party, get a few hundred a day for rocking up at Westminster for life.
As we learned from Sally Bercow and Lord McAlpine, Twitter is a cesspool that costs people money.
For two it would be a stunt - parliament can basically do what it wants but that would be disproportionate and unfair. If tried it would be to embarrass the PM to defend Boris.
They won't do it.
Fixed that for you - no charge
You mean it was 2.1pp down. A 2.1pp drop is only a 2.1% drop if you got 100% of the vote last time. I know you know this, so I think you're trying to mislead people.
As for your point about the areas voting Leave/Remain whatever, THAT is the shaft of sunlight I want you to step into. If you think there are OTHER reasons why people might be more positive about the Conservatives then fine, those arguments can be assessed separately. I'm ONLY objecting to your idea that an 8.6% Hindu population is some positive-only previously untapped goldmine for Sunak. The more you look at the numbers the more idiotic the idea sounds.
They are good at killing people (sometimes even the right people) despite inadequate equipment and training but 'common sense'... no.
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2023/england/councils/E06000016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Watford_Borough_Council_election
It’s a fact that until 1993 Johnson was married to Allegra Mostyn-Owen.
It’s a fact that Johnson’s mother’s first name was Charlotte.
No speculation.
Edit: Boilerplate..
Imagine if the Tories were bumping along 30 points down in the polling from their 2019 result. That would imply their Watford result ought to be MINUS 11%. That's obviously nonsense, and it's the reason why you can't just look at the percentage point drop.
And you already know this.
HOLAC makes no judgment on the suitability of those nominated to be peers, but it does have a responsibility otherwise to defend the propriety of the process.
I'm willing to accept their judgment, and merely note that her qualifications for the role look exceedingly thin.
Good sense is more uncommon.
Should Rishi Sunak be allowed to whip his MPs to deem Keir Starmer as "morally bankrupt"?
It's up to the voters and the voters alone to determine their own morals.