Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Time to write off a Mid-Beds by-election? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,047
edited July 2023 in General
imageTime to write off a Mid-Beds by-election? – politicalbetting.com

It has been on the card for months – a by-election in Mid Beds where Nadine Dorries has been MP since GE2010.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,157
    Poor Nad. Bozo lied to her. Who'da thought it
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,854
    Test
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,157
    Oh was I first? Nobody cares.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,084
    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,440
    You'd be seething if you lumped on the Lib Dems.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    More likely she just wants the extra cash.
  • strawbrickstrawbrick Posts: 22
    It would appear that the multiple reports in the media that she had stated that she was resigning (as an MP) with immediate effect were wrong.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,157

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Is there a chance of a recall petition based on the fact she has resigned in name only, and may not be representing her constituents but just herself? Her argument seems to be she is only staying on to get the information about why she was denied a peerage - nothing about doing her actual job or representing the people who elected her. If I were the local Tory party I'd be seething and worrying that every day that passes the attacks become easier - that Tories are self interested and don't care about you little people, see how your last MP spent the last x months of her time in parliament shouting only about herself.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    edited June 2023
    Go Nads.

    Some of us have already spent our Lib Dems gain Mid Beds winnings.

    But how dense is Nads.

    1) She believed Boris Johnson

    2) She has a different understanding of what immediate effect means to the rest of the UK.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,157

    It would appear that the multiple reports in the media that she had stated that she was resigning (as an MP) with immediate effect were wrong.

    A friend and confident (and who knows what else?) of Boris Johnson is a liar. Never would have guessed that one.
  • Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    Also on topic.

    Eating a kangaroo’s bunghole live on TV still isn’t the most embarrassing thing Dorries has ever done.

    Take a bow.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    Image I could have done without...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    More chance of me saying nice things about Max Verstappen.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544
    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,157

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    You make that sound like a surprising unusual occurrence.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,574
    148grss said:

    Is there a chance of a recall petition based on the fact she has resigned in name only, and may not be representing her constituents but just herself? Her argument seems to be she is only staying on to get the information about why she was denied a peerage - nothing about doing her actual job or representing the people who elected her. If I were the local Tory party I'd be seething and worrying that every day that passes the attacks become easier - that Tories are self interested and don't care about you little people, see how your last MP spent the last x months of her time in parliament shouting only about herself.

    None, since she’d have to be suspended for Parliament for that to even be an option.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,056
    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,759

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
  • viewcode said:

    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.

    The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    edited June 2023

    This one of the presents I received from my eldest.

    He said it was apt given my love of history and Dad jokes/puns.


    Shades of that scene in Excalibur where Uther (Gabriel Byrne) is impregnating Igraine (Katrine Boorman) wearing a full suit of armour.

    Must have been bloody painful for poor Boorman to shoot that scene, leaving aside the fact that to quote Austin Powers the sheer logistics of it defy imagination.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462

    This one of the presents I received from my eldest for Father’s Day.

    He said it was apt given my love of history and Dad jokes/puns.

    (Snip)

    This year, my son wrote me a Father's Day card in Latin.

    I've no idea what it says. Hopefully something good ...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,358
    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,358

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,196
    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Is there a chance of a recall petition based on the fact she has resigned in name only, and may not be representing her constituents but just herself? Her argument seems to be she is only staying on to get the information about why she was denied a peerage - nothing about doing her actual job or representing the people who elected her. If I were the local Tory party I'd be seething and worrying that every day that passes the attacks become easier - that Tories are self interested and don't care about you little people, see how your last MP spent the last x months of her time in parliament shouting only about herself.

    None, since she’d have to be suspended for Parliament for that to even be an option.
    (Or a custodial prison sentence (including a suspended sentence), or a conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims.)
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544
    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    She seems to attract a level of opprobrium, especially from her own side, that isn't really commensurate with her underlying offensiveness. I can't help wondering whether there is an element of sexism and snobbishness at work.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,056

    viewcode said:

    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.

    The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    What is a tweet, if not writing?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,084

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Paradoxically, not liking each other might make it easier to make a proper deal. It was Boris and Nad's nod and wink between mates that fell over.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462
    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    Stellar leadership there.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139
    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,440
    edited June 2023

    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
    My dad didn't think much to her recent speech bigging up Shaun Bailey (The other one) that he went to in person. She's obviously pressing the flesh for a run at the post Rishi LOTO job though.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,796

    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    She seems to attract a level of opprobrium, especially from her own side, that isn't really commensurate with her underlying offensiveness. I can't help wondering whether there is an element of sexism and snobbishness at work.
    No more than the equally ghastly Rees Mogg and you'd be hard put to attach those tired old chestnuts to him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003
    Unless Nadine gets elevated to the Lords or gets a clear explanation as to why she was rejected for a peerage and surprisingly accepts it then yes I think she will now stay as an MP to spite the 'liberal establishment' until the next general election.

    So with Mid Beds off the LDs will I assume just focus on the Somerton and Frome by election for now
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,420
    edited June 2023
    Scott_xP said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
    Does that include the gongs for the senior Civil Service? If so, they will be revolting
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,084
    Scott_xP said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
    Neither Blair nor Brown had a resignation honours list but blocking Rishi's would be radical. People get frightfully hung up over an MBE for whichever SpAd taught the Prime Minister how to use a contactless payment card.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544
    Roger said:

    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    She seems to attract a level of opprobrium, especially from her own side, that isn't really commensurate with her underlying offensiveness. I can't help wondering whether there is an element of sexism and snobbishness at work.
    No more than the equally ghastly Rees Mogg and you'd be hard put to attach those tired old chestnuts to him.
    Rees-Mogg seems to me to be worse but get a lot less blue on blue hate. He was actually precisely the comparator I had in mind when making the comment.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Interesting info that should scare the likes of @HYUFD

    https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1670006524947595265?s=20

    Whilst I disagree with a lot of the analysis (I do think a lot of it is still the economy), it isn't great reading for Tories.

    (My argument is that those homeowners are still pretty likely to know and care about other people in their generation who have not been able to get on the housing ladder and still rent / live with family)

    I also think climate change is a big issue, and that the internet has had more of an impact on the dissolution of a clear national identity than "woke indoctrination" from schools
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544

    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
    Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,420

    viewcode said:

    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.

    The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    Being able to resign MPs against their will would be so useful

    “Today, I’ve resigned all the members opposite. Now for some voting.”
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,759

    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
    I knew her and her parents in Brent North, and she seemed pleasant enough.

    I do think that Nadine goes overboard in her enthusiasm for Johnson, but that doesn't make her unpleasant.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462
    People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"

    Quite persuasively, in my view.
  • viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.

    The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    What is a tweet, if not writing?
    Informal writing, not formal.

    Gerry Adams (IIRC) had formally written a letter of resignation to The Speaker.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462

    viewcode said:

    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.

    The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    Being able to resign MPs against their will would be so useful

    “Today, I’ve resigned all the members opposite. Now for some voting.”
    Russians reign at fifth-floor windows.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    She wanted to defer the peerage to the end of this parliament.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,277
    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"

    Quite persuasively, in my view.

    Have they been officially published? I keep refreshing the DoE page but can't see them directly
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,601
    HYUFD said:

    Unless Nadine gets elevated to the Lords or gets a clear explanation as to why she was rejected for a peerage and surprisingly accepts it then yes I think she will now stay as an MP to spite the 'liberal establishment' until the next general election.

    So with Mid Beds off the LDs will I assume just focus on the Somerton and Frome by election for now

    A much easier by election for them to win. Recent history of LD holding the seat in a number of GEs.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    Stellar leadership there.

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    Stellar leadership there.

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    Stellar leadership there.
    It's not a government issue it's a house of commons one, hence rishi is just one of 650 MPs for this purpose. Plus it's much more damaging for Johnson to lose an unwhipped vote. Sunak is doing this right.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003

    HYUFD said:

    Unless Nadine gets elevated to the Lords or gets a clear explanation as to why she was rejected for a peerage and surprisingly accepts it then yes I think she will now stay as an MP to spite the 'liberal establishment' until the next general election.

    So with Mid Beds off the LDs will I assume just focus on the Somerton and Frome by election for now

    A much easier by election for them to win. Recent history of LD holding the seat in a number of GEs.
    Indeed, the LDs even held Somerton and Frome in 2010, narrowly beating Annunziata Rees Mogg despite the Conservatives winning most seats UK wide and a majority of seats in England.

    They only lost it as recently as 2015
  • 148grss said:

    People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"

    Quite persuasively, in my view.

    Have they been officially published? I keep refreshing the DoE page but can't see them directly
    The proposals as published by The Sun make no sense whatsoever. Hopefully its The Sun spouting hateful bollocks as normal, but who knows?

    EG that those who change pronouns shouldn't be able to take part in competitive sport? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Saying that biological males can't compete in female categories makes perfect sense. But if a biological female or male wants to be called eg "they" and compete in their own biological category then there is no reason that should be denied.
  • ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.

    The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003
    edited June 2023
    148grss said:

    Interesting info that should scare the likes of @HYUFD

    https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1670006524947595265?s=20

    Whilst I disagree with a lot of the analysis (I do think a lot of it is still the economy), it isn't great reading for Tories.

    (My argument is that those homeowners are still pretty likely to know and care about other people in their generation who have not been able to get on the housing ladder and still rent / live with family)

    I also think climate change is a big issue, and that the internet has had more of an impact on the dissolution of a clear national identity than "woke indoctrination" from schools

    The Tories didn't even win under 35s in 2015 and 2019 when they won a majority.

    That age group will almost always mostly vote Labour regardless of personal circumstances (just as most over 65s even in council housing and on the state pension voted Conservative in 2019 and are still voting Tory).

    However if Labour get in and inflation and interest rates remain high and higher earners see their tax rise then that will see some under 35s go Tory without the Tories needing to do anything
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,277
    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627

    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.

    The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
    Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.

    I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    148grss said:

    People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"

    Quite persuasively, in my view.

    Have they been officially published? I keep refreshing the DoE page but can't see them directly
    The proposals as published by The Sun make no sense whatsoever. Hopefully its The Sun spouting hateful bollocks as normal, but who knows?

    EG that those who change pronouns shouldn't be able to take part in competitive sport? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Saying that biological males can't compete in female categories makes perfect sense. But if a biological female or male wants to be called eg "they" and compete in their own biological category then there is no reason that should be denied.
    The thing is that most positions held by "gender criticals" don't make sense, and much of it is just the policing of gender by the reinforcement of gender stereotypes rather than the deconstruction of them.

    I can't imagine any sensible policy - because at the end of the day any sensible policy would state "if a teacher believes a student is at risk by being outed they should accept it as a safeguarding risk" and that would seem to be anathema to the entire plan. I would say if a student is out at school but not at home automatically suggests that there is a safeguarding issue - because otherwise the child would be out at home. Children are more likely to know the reaction by parents than the teachers would, so of course you should be led by the pupil and not the parent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    edited June 2023
    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
    I know that. What I was saying was that becoming a member of the Lords automatically means you leave the commons. Even if you don't want it to (although in that case why accept a peerage)?

    Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Aiui she was (with characteristic thoughtlessness) wanting to take the peerage but wait till the end of this parliament to do so.

    Either that or an sinister forces biased against scousers born into ‘poverty’ (I suspect a degree of self-mythologising there; though relative to most of her Con mates I daresay it feels like poverty).
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.

    The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
    Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.

    I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
    Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.

    So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?

    She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,650

    viewcode said:

    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.

    The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    She put it in writing:
    https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742
  • viewcode said:

    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.

    The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    She put it in writing:
    https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742
    Informal writing. Writing Tweets or speaking to the Chief Whip != formally writing a letter of resignation to the Speaker as Gerry Adams did.

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.

    The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    What is a tweet, if not writing?
    Informal writing, not formal.

    Gerry Adams (IIRC) had formally written a letter of resignation to The Speaker.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462
    Oryx will be ending in October. Sad, but understandable.

    https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670723829713215489

    :(
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    edited June 2023

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.

    The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
    Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.

    I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
    Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.

    So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?

    She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
    Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.

    That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"

    Quite persuasively, in my view.

    Have they been officially published? I keep refreshing the DoE page but can't see them directly
    The proposals as published by The Sun make no sense whatsoever. Hopefully its The Sun spouting hateful bollocks as normal, but who knows?

    EG that those who change pronouns shouldn't be able to take part in competitive sport? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Saying that biological males can't compete in female categories makes perfect sense. But if a biological female or male wants to be called eg "they" and compete in their own biological category then there is no reason that should be denied.
    The thing is that most positions held by "gender criticals" don't make sense, and much of it is just the policing of gender by the reinforcement of gender stereotypes rather than the deconstruction of them.

    I can't imagine any sensible policy - because at the end of the day any sensible policy would state "if a teacher believes a student is at risk by being outed they should accept it as a safeguarding risk" and that would seem to be anathema to the entire plan. I would say if a student is out at school but not at home automatically suggests that there is a safeguarding issue - because otherwise the child would be out at home. Children are more likely to know the reaction by parents than the teachers would, so of course you should be led by the pupil and not the parent.
    The guidance is, I believe, deliberately provocative to move the national debate to a field where the Tories feel safe.

    The competitive sport bit is weird and of dubious legality, however.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.

    The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
    Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.

    I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
    Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.

    So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?

    She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
    Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.

    That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
    Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.

    The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,277
    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
    I know that. What I was saying was that becoming a member of the Lords automatically means you leave the commons. Even if you don't want it to (although in that case why accept a peerage)?

    Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
    What was interesting is that the Macmillan Government then introduced legislation to allow peers to renounce their titles within a certain period. This was intended to remedy the injustice to Tony Benn, but it also had the effect of then allowing both Home and Hailsham to do the same and thus become viable contenders for the Tory Leadership in November 1963. A law with unintended consequences....
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    Interesting first shot from Joe Root.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    Not how I expected the first ball of the day to be played by Joe Root.

    I fear today will be suboptimal for my stress levels.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358

    Oryx will be ending in October. Sad, but understandable.

    https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670723829713215489

    :(

    I've honestly never heard of it. Trying to find out now what it's all about.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,650
    Nads has already made excuses on Twitter as to why she can't quit yet. Suspect that she won't be sent the full unredacted messages (does she believe these will prove she has been diddled?) and therefore won't resign.

    https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1669060242552811520
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,440
    Bazball French Cricket
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,369
    Pulpstar said:

    Bazball French Cricket

    Root alors
  • malcolmg said:

    viewcode said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Have read the linked guidance from the Sun.
    Hopefully, that's just the Sun's spin on it and the official stuff will be more nuanced.
    But if that is anywhere near the policy that will be imposed, then I'll find another job. I won't be alone. My whole career has been about keeping children safe. I will not be outing them to potentially violent
    parents for Tory culture war comfort.
    Good luck filling the teacher vacancies.

    If a kid is exhibiting mental health issues it is your duty to alert the parents
    Should you alert a parent if their child is gay?
    Should you alert the parents if you know the issue is connected to the parents?
    Why would being gay be an "issue" and why could it be connected to teh parents.
    The question is not whether being gay is an issue, the question is whether the parents believe being gay is an issue and how they would then treat the child.
    Surely if it is obvious at school then it would be obvious at home or am I being naive.
    A child with ignorant parents might feel safe to come out to their friends or teacher before they do to their parents.

    And what a six from Root!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314
    Joe Root had three Weetabix for breakfast!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139

    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
    Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
    Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462
    Andy_JS said:

    Oryx will be ending in October. Sad, but understandable.

    https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670723829713215489

    :(

    I've honestly never heard of it. Trying to find out now what it's all about.
    You hadn't seen Oryx mentioned on here? They maintain lists relating to various conflicts, including the following (there is a Ukrainian one as well).

    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
  • Sandpit said:

    Joe Root had three Weetabix for breakfast!

    Joe Root is telling the Aussies you'll need to change your field for me.

    Take the pressure to them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139

    People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"

    Quite persuasively, in my view.

    Maybe they'll get round to persuasively linking it to the Third Reich in a minute.

    After all, it is Twitter.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
    Sunak: A profile in courage
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,040

    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
    Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
    Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
    Dame Priti can be charming
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    edited June 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    Oryx will be ending in October. Sad, but understandable.

    https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670723829713215489

    :(

    I've honestly never heard of it. Trying to find out now what it's all about.
    Most reliable source for weapons system losses on both sides in the Ukraine conflict.
    Fact checks, geolocates, confirms and weeds out duplicates from all the reports/videos online.


    Which is an enormous undertaking.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,358

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
    Sunak: A profile in courage
    @campbellclaret
    Getting the sense Sunak doesn’t really care much about standards in public life.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,650

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
    Sunak: A profile in courage
    He's Frit. Leadership by hiding from reality.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
    Sunak: A profile in courage
    Is that one of those profiles when the guy turns sideways and just disappears ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,440

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
    Sunak: A profile in courage
    He's like a pound shop Major.

    However I don't like Labour's north sea oil and gas policies one bit* - this is the biggest barrier between me and a Lab vote at the next GE currently.

    * I note he's managed to annoy those on the other side of me (Pump it all) this morning with the 'Won't oppose Rosebank?' too.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462

    People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"

    Quite persuasively, in my view.

    Maybe they'll get round to persuasively linking it to the Third Reich in a minute.

    After all, it is Twitter.
    You agree with the proposals, as we know of them atm?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.

    NEW

    The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising.
    The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…


    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1670710441645834240
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    Interesting info that should scare the likes of @HYUFD

    https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1670006524947595265?s=20

    Whilst I disagree with a lot of the analysis (I do think a lot of it is still the economy), it isn't great reading for Tories.

    (My argument is that those homeowners are still pretty likely to know and care about other people in their generation who have not been able to get on the housing ladder and still rent / live with family)

    I also think climate change is a big issue, and that the internet has had more of an impact on the dissolution of a clear national identity than "woke indoctrination" from schools

    The Tories didn't even win under 35s in 2015 and 2019 when they won a majority.

    That age group will almost always mostly vote Labour regardless of personal circumstances (just as most over 65s even in council housing and on the state pension voted Conservative in 2019 and are still voting Tory).

    However if Labour get in and inflation and interest rates remain high and higher earners see their tax rise then that will see some under 35s go Tory without the Tories needing to do anything
    The average age of voters is increasing all the time, which gives the Tories extra room to convince people to vote for them.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544

    Sean_F said:

    Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?

    I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
    Does anyone?

    Even Boris just used her.
    As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
    I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
    Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
    Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
    Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544

    Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.

    NEW

    The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising.
    The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…


    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1670710441645834240

    Yes this is why I have thought this for a while - I forecast the economy for a living.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,358
    FRIT. FRIT. FRIT...

    Rishi Sunak must pick a side on Boris Johnson and “show some leadership” by voting on a report by the privileges committee today, Sir Keir Starmer has said.

    The prime minister this morning ducked questions about whether he would attend this afternoon’s debate, and is widely expected to abstain, along with most ministers. Allies of Johnson are preparing to condemn the findings of the report and warn it sets a precedent for political targeting of other ministers, but it remains unclear whether they will force a vote.

    Sunak said that the privileges committee, which said Johnson should have got a 90-day suspension if he were still an MP, had “done their work thoroughly, and I respect them for that”.

    But he refused to say whether he would vote, saying today’s debate was “a matter for the House, not for the government, and that’s why each individual colleague will make up their own mind when the time comes”.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,446

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.

    Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
    Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
    Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
    Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
    Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.

    The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
    Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.

    I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
    Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.

    So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?

    She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
    Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.

    That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
    Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.

    The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
    The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.

    On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    What a numpty...


    @tamcohen
    PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

    He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.

    He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
    Sunak: A profile in courage
    He's like a pound shop Major.

    However I don't like Labour's north sea oil and gas policies one bit* - this is the biggest barrier between me and a Lab vote at the next GE currently.

    * I note he's managed to annoy those on the other side of me (Pump it all) this morning with the 'Won't oppose Rosebank?' too.
    That's Starmer. Sunak is doing a very good job in my view he's just a bit naive about the politics bit and not learning fast enough.

    I think there's something else going with Sunak and Gove opposing it today. They're worried about precedent and creating an open goal for Labour to refer minister after minister to the Privileges Committee. They worry they'd be doing it over Covid all the way to the GE to create story after story.

    I don't necessarily agree with that but it does shed some light on why.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757

    Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.

    NEW

    The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising.
    The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…


    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1670710441645834240

    Yes this is why I have thought this for a while - I forecast the economy for a living.
    Can't you do more cheerful forecasts ? :smile:
This discussion has been closed.