Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Was Sunak’s no show in the vote a mistake? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,825
edited June 2023 in General
Was Sunak’s no show in the vote a mistake? – politicalbetting.com

"Is Rishi Sunak in hiding?"Bob Seely was the poor sap pushed out last night to defend the PM's Commons no-show – and duly got his arse handed to him by Victoria Derbyshire.https://t.co/aFZJxt33LC

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,289
    edited June 2023
    No.

    (And first)
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,036
    Does skipping the whole thing please anyone at all?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,138

    algarkirk said:

    No.

    (And first)

    How was it a good choice for Sunak to make?

    What would have been the downside of him voting for the report?

    Of course it was a mistake. Weak, weak, weak.
    I don't believe you understand Sunak's impressive game of 4D chess.

    (I am not sure he does either.)
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,432
    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,598
    DougSeal said:

    Does skipping the whole thing please anyone at all?

    algarkirk, apparently.

    And probably Boris.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,127
    Not so much a mistake as an indication that Sunak has given up. We're just waiting for the end now.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,289
    edited June 2023

    algarkirk said:

    No.

    (And first)

    How was it a good choice for Sunak to make?

    What would have been the downside of him voting for the report?

    Of course it was a mistake. Weak, weak, weak.
    Of the three choices none is perfect, but there are greater dangers for a PM in being found supporting or opposing Boris than there are in standing aside. Of the three it is the most forgettable. It will not figure in the next election, or change minds now.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,459
    Yes, it was weak, weak, weak.

    Glad to see my Tory MP had the decency to support the committee recommendation.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,054
    Good morning

    I was extremely disappointed in Sunak avoiding the vote and on the face of it it was an own goal which his opponents will celebrate

    Whether it has traction in the months ahead only time will tell, but the party have to come together and move on as it faces the most intractable of problems, not least the rising mortgage rates

    It is clear that there is very little the government can do to ameliorate these increases without scaring the markets and seeing even higher rates

    The one stark lesson Truss demonstrated to politicians is propose unfunded tax cuts or increased spending and the markets will act adversely

    It is one of the reasons that I expect Starmer to continue to water down his more ambitious spending programmes but notwithstanding, it is time for the country to accept, covid, the war in Ukraine, and indeed in some part Brexit will see years of turmoil and poorer living standards for many, though some as always will prosper

    It is not a happy climate for any government, especially one looking to take office, and hard unpopular decisions will be the order of the day
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,392

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    So a pair of sinkings has saved Sunak from being sunk?
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,375
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    No.

    (And first)

    How was it a good choice for Sunak to make?

    What would have been the downside of him voting for the report?

    Of course it was a mistake. Weak, weak, weak.
    Of the three choices none is perfect, but there are greater dangers for a PM in being found supporting or opposing Boris than there are in standing aside. Of the three it is the most forgettable. It will not figure in the next election, or change minds now.
    It won't figure in the next election, but voting against Johnson was a chance to make him look like a strong leader, and win over a few voters. Opportunity missed.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,045

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    And poisoned relations with Scotland too.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,138

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    Good analysis, but you still have Truss and Johnson the wrong way around. A-
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,448

    algarkirk said:

    No.

    (And first)

    How was it a good choice for Sunak to make?

    What would have been the downside of him voting for the report?

    Of course it was a mistake. Weak, weak, weak.
    I don't believe you understand Sunak's impressive game of 4D chess.

    (I am not sure he does either.)
    One day the spreadsheet will leak, and we'll understand everything.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,123
    edited June 2023

    Not too many people outside the political bubble will be that bothered by this.

    Lots of people will be bothered by continuing high inflation, increasing interest rates and the consequent erosion of their real wealth and incomes.

    On that, the latest from Which continues to confirm very high [edit] food price inflation at "ordinary family shops in ordinary supermarket" level. A key issue is the relatively high rise in own-label cheap end of the market stuff.

    https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/cost-of-cooking-a-family-meal-soars-by-up-to-27-as-price-of-some-ingredients-doubles-aA3K74w0eh7b

    If food and housing are going up far more than the 5% or whatever Mr Sunak et al loudly proclaim, his statements will be worse tham useless.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,717
    ydoethur said:

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    So a pair of sinkings has saved Sunak from being sunk?
    Or risky recreation for the rich rescues Rishi.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,561

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    Also got South Africa wrong. Clearer for me if allowed to cheat and splut Thatcher 79-87ish and Thatcher 87ish-90

    Blair
    Thatcher 79-87
    Major
    Cameron

    Gap

    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Thatcher 87-90

    Big Gap

    Johnson

    Gap

    Truss
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,127
    edited June 2023

    Not too many people outside the political bubble will be that bothered by this.

    Lots of people will be bothered by continuing high inflation, increasing interest rates and the consequent erosion of their real wealth and incomes.

    They are bothered more by inflation etc, but are nevertheless less likely to vote Conservative. Sharp downturn in the polls over the last week
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,561

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Depends if they were recreating a night out based on an Oscar winning blockbuster film based on the most famous night out ever.
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,449
    Carnyx said:

    Not too many people outside the political bubble will be that bothered by this.

    Lots of people will be bothered by continuing high inflation, increasing interest rates and the consequent erosion of their real wealth and incomes.

    On that, the latest from Which continues to confirm very high [edit] food price inflation at "ordinary family shops in ordinary supermarket" level. A key issue is the relatively high rise in own-label cheap end of the market stuff.

    https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/cost-of-cooking-a-family-meal-soars-by-up-to-27-as-price-of-some-ingredients-doubles-aA3K74w0eh7b

    If food and housing are going up far more than the 5% or whatever Mr Sunak et al loudly proclaim, his statements will be worse tham useless.
    Not sure Rishi is going to make the 5% CPI. Given the significant technical falls in CPI which will occur this year due to the elimination of the impact of big energy and fuel increases in 2022, this is very disappointing.

    Even 5% CPI is extremely high and corrosive of income and wealth. Not everyone can get pay rises in line with inflation and lots of private pension schemes only increase in response to inflation by a limited extent. Also annuity holders see their income eroded.



  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,448

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Nor did 500 migrants drowning in the Mediterranean, in fact.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,054
    Chris said:

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Nor did 500 migrants drowning in the Mediterranean, in fact.
    Actually that was covered extensively on Sky and the BBC

    Terrible tragedy and a very serious problem for the EU as Italy, Greece and others decline help
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,921
    On topic

    Sunak = Marcus Licinius Crassus

    GE24 = The battle of Carrhae.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,054
    Just listened to Sky 9.00 news and yesterday's vote was not mentioned at all

    Are the media moving on ?
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,305

    Chris said:

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Nor did 500 migrants drowning in the Mediterranean, in fact.
    Actually that was covered extensively on Sky and the BBC

    Terrible tragedy and a very serious problem for the EU as Italy, Greece and others decline help
    The ones that make it are a problem for the EU (and the UK where some will end up) but the ones that drown... not so much... They are probably a net positive for the EU due to the deterrent effect.
  • Options
    FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,319
    Sunak looks more concerned about pleasing Tory members that pleasing the electorate. That will come back to bite him.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,036
    Anyone with an interest in football may want to review the red card Wales received last night. A thing of some wonder. He basically kicked the Turkish player in the nuts. High doesn’t even begin to describe the tackle.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,921
    DougSeal said:

    Anyone with an interest in football may want to review the red card Wales received last night. A thing of some wonder. He basically kicked the Turkish player in the nuts. High doesn’t even begin to describe the tackle.

    That Turkish player ain’t having kids.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,986

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Yes and no. I think if they had driven a car into a river there would be coverage. I get your point (do we care more for wealthy people) but I think there is also the 'unusual' factor involved here too. Also its missing, not confirmed what's happened, so there is mystery too.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,432
    edited June 2023
    Britons urged not to visit popular French tourist sites
    Foreign social media 'influencers' will be used to push visitors away from Mont-Saint-Michel or the cliffs of ­Étretat

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/06/20/france-british-tourist-campaign-mont-saint-michel-crowd/ (£££)

    France has too many tourists, apparently, so expect the Gazette's top travel writers (Monsieur @Leon in particular) to steer visitors to the less exposed parts of the country. Thank Dieu that no bloody fool has arranged to hold the Olympics in Paris. Oh, they have. Damn.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663
    A
    Dura_Ace said:

    Chris said:

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Nor did 500 migrants drowning in the Mediterranean, in fact.
    Actually that was covered extensively on Sky and the BBC

    Terrible tragedy and a very serious problem for the EU as Italy, Greece and others decline help
    The ones that make it are a problem for the EU (and the UK where some will end up) but the ones that drown... not so much... They are probably a net positive for the EU due to the deterrent effect.
    Well, they are an economic loss for the nice chaps who run this

    image
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,921
    edited June 2023

    Britons urged not to visit popular French tourist sites
    Foreign social media 'influencers' will be used to push visitors away from Mont-Saint-Michel or the cliffs of ­Étretat

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/06/20/france-british-tourist-campaign-mont-saint-michel-crowd/ (£££)

    France has too many tourists, apparently, so expect the Gazette's top travel writers (Monsieur @Leon in particular) to steer visitors to the less exposed parts of the country. Thank Dieu that no bloody fool has arranged to hold the Olympics in Paris. Oh, they have. Damn.

    The French will put up as much resistance as they did in May/June 1940.

    This French bluster is all fart and no follow through.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,446

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    Spot on.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,274
    Was Rishi Rich "doing a Bozo" and hiding in a fridge?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Yes and no. I think if they had driven a car into a river there would be coverage. I get your point (do we care more for wealthy people) but I think there is also the 'unusual' factor involved here too. Also its missing, not confirmed what's happened, so there is mystery too.
    What the new organisations are hoping for is a "race against time" to rescue a sunken sub.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_in_the_Hole_(1951_film)

    Carbon fibre is an interesting choice for a pressure vessel.

    "He described being initially hesitant about going aboard the sub at all because some of the components appeared "off the shelf, sort of improvised".
    "You steer this sub with an Xbox game controller, some of the ballast is abandoned construction pipes."
    Pogue said he had been reassured by Titan's inventor and OceanGate's CEO, Stockton Rush, that the carbon-fibre main capsule had been co-designed with Nasa and the University of Washington and was "rock solid".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65957709
  • Options
    Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,015

    algarkirk said:

    No.

    (And first)

    How was it a good choice for Sunak to make?

    What would have been the downside of him voting for the report?

    Of course it was a mistake. Weak, weak, weak.
    I don't believe you understand Sunak's impressive game of 4D chess.

    (I am not sure he does either.)
    Sunak is spineless and that is his issue. None of the recent PMs have shown much spine. TMay looked like she had some spine but it transpired that what she really had was total deafness. Truss was an idiot (no shock there) and Boris runs from every hard problem that comes along. Even Cameron was lazy.

    Starmer needs to show some backbone and leadership. If he does that he will get a easy second term.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 48,149

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Yes and no. I think if they had driven a car into a river there would be coverage. I get your point (do we care more for wealthy people) but I think there is also the 'unusual' factor involved here too. Also its missing, not confirmed what's happened, so there is mystery too.
    What the new organisations are hoping for is a "race against time" to rescue a sunken sub.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_in_the_Hole_(1951_film)

    Carbon fibre is an interesting choice for a pressure vessel.

    "He described being initially hesitant about going aboard the sub at all because some of the components appeared "off the shelf, sort of improvised".
    "You steer this sub with an Xbox game controller, some of the ballast is abandoned construction pipes."
    Pogue said he had been reassured by Titan's inventor and OceanGate's CEO, Stockton Rush, that the carbon-fibre main capsule had been co-designed with Nasa and the University of Washington and was "rock solid".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65957709
    If they wanted the Titanic experience...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    Spot on.
    She actually started the modern NI peace process.

    It was a twin track effort - reaching out to the Irish government, killing off the hardline terrorists on both sides. The later was accomplished by using double agents - who rose to positions of power in the various organisations. And worked to kill off the hardliners who didn't want peace.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663
    IanB2 said:

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Yes and no. I think if they had driven a car into a river there would be coverage. I get your point (do we care more for wealthy people) but I think there is also the 'unusual' factor involved here too. Also its missing, not confirmed what's happened, so there is mystery too.
    What the new organisations are hoping for is a "race against time" to rescue a sunken sub.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_in_the_Hole_(1951_film)

    Carbon fibre is an interesting choice for a pressure vessel.

    "He described being initially hesitant about going aboard the sub at all because some of the components appeared "off the shelf, sort of improvised".
    "You steer this sub with an Xbox game controller, some of the ballast is abandoned construction pipes."
    Pogue said he had been reassured by Titan's inventor and OceanGate's CEO, Stockton Rush, that the carbon-fibre main capsule had been co-designed with Nasa and the University of Washington and was "rock solid".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65957709
    If they wanted the Titanic experience...
    The Titanic was actually built from the finest materials (Admiralty spec steel for the hull etc) available on a cost plus basis* by Harland & Wolf. Who were one of the best yards in the UK.

    *H&W and White Star line were very closely aligned organisations.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,921
    edited June 2023

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    Spot on.
    She actually started the modern NI peace process.

    It was a twin track effort - reaching out to the Irish government, killing off the hardline terrorists on both sides. The later was accomplished by using double agents - who rose to positions of power in the various organisations. And worked to kill off the hardliners who didn't want peace.
    Freddie Scappaticci deserves a sainthood for his role in the peace process.

    The UK’s finest double agent, up there with Nicola Sturgeon.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,305

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Yes and no. I think if they had driven a car into a river there would be coverage. I get your point (do we care more for wealthy people) but I think there is also the 'unusual' factor involved here too. Also its missing, not confirmed what's happened, so there is mystery too.
    What the new organisations are hoping for is a "race against time" to rescue a sunken sub.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_in_the_Hole_(1951_film)

    Carbon fibre is an interesting choice for a pressure vessel.

    "He described being initially hesitant about going aboard the sub at all because some of the components appeared "off the shelf, sort of improvised".
    "You steer this sub with an Xbox game controller, some of the ballast is abandoned construction pipes."
    Pogue said he had been reassured by Titan's inventor and OceanGate's CEO, Stockton Rush, that the carbon-fibre main capsule had been co-designed with Nasa and the University of Washington and was "rock solid".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65957709
    Who the fuck is going to get them off the bottom at 4,000m by Thursday lunchtime? The US Navy recovered a Knighthawk from 5,800m in the Pacific but that's salvaging the wreckage and very different from a hatch rescue of a DISSUB. They 'only' attempt that down to 600m.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,547

    The Titanic was actually built from the finest materials (Admiralty spec steel for the hull etc) available on a cost plus basis* by Harland & Wolf. Who were one of the best yards in the UK.

    *H&W and White Star line were very closely aligned organisations.

    I read recently there is some speculation that not all of the rivets were as strong as they should have been
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,305

    Was Rishi Rich "doing a Bozo" and hiding in a fridge?

    No need for a fridge, the little shit could just jump into an umbrella stand.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663
    Dura_Ace said:

    The Titanic submarine loss dominates the headlines, effectively burying the news of Rishi's abstention from a vote that will barely command a footnote in history.

    It is very sad that a billionaire and four friends are missing whilst out on a misadventure, but I fail to see why it would be top story on all networks.

    Five scallywags missing after a night out in a town on a significant river wouldn't elicit such coverage.
    Yes and no. I think if they had driven a car into a river there would be coverage. I get your point (do we care more for wealthy people) but I think there is also the 'unusual' factor involved here too. Also its missing, not confirmed what's happened, so there is mystery too.
    What the new organisations are hoping for is a "race against time" to rescue a sunken sub.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_in_the_Hole_(1951_film)

    Carbon fibre is an interesting choice for a pressure vessel.

    "He described being initially hesitant about going aboard the sub at all because some of the components appeared "off the shelf, sort of improvised".
    "You steer this sub with an Xbox game controller, some of the ballast is abandoned construction pipes."
    Pogue said he had been reassured by Titan's inventor and OceanGate's CEO, Stockton Rush, that the carbon-fibre main capsule had been co-designed with Nasa and the University of Washington and was "rock solid".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65957709
    Who the fuck is going to get them off the bottom at 4,000m by Thursday lunchtime? The US Navy recovered a Knighthawk from 5,800m in the Pacific but that's salvaging the wreckage and very different from a hatch rescue of a DISSUB. They 'only' attempt that down to 600m.
    Send another submersible or UUV to attach a lift bag. The US Navy has lift bags that function down that deep, for recovering mislaid items - theirs and other peoples.

    I would very much doubt that the hatch is compatible with any rescue sub - and the depth is way beyond rescue sub depth, as you say.
  • Options

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,024

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    Spot on.
    She actually started the modern NI peace process.

    It was a twin track effort - reaching out to the Irish government, killing off the hardline terrorists on both sides. The later was accomplished by using double agents - who rose to positions of power in the various organisations. And worked to kill off the hardliners who didn't want peace.
    Yes, agreed.
    I also give Major rather more credit than Blair. My problem with Mo Mowlam's approach was that she ended up rewarding the hardliners on both sides and marginalising the moderates.

    My favourite NI secretary was Roy Mason. Treat criminals as criminals.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,997
    I think if Sunak knew the vote was going to be so one sided it would have been easy to make the decision to vote for the report - if only seven Tory MPs were willing to vote to defend Johnson and they wanted to resign over the issue that feels like it would be part and parcel with the current state of the Tory party, whilst as you say this weakness pleases nobody. If this was an attempt to please backbenchers who like Johnson - where were they for this vote? And if it was an attempt to appease voters, I think he has the mood of the country wrong. And signs of weakness are bad for a PM in this kind of situation, it suggests to the Johnsonites that they can still push and it suggests to those that are tired of them that the PM will do nothing about them.
  • Options

    I don't think missing yesterday's vote is hugely important for Sunak. Rather, what will do for him in the end is his wooden and repetitive responses to questions, exemplified yesterday when he just kept repeating the same mantra "it's a matter for parliament". He does this all the time, just repeats the same tangential answer regardless of the precise question:

    Interviewer: PM, what did you have for lunch today?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our 5 key priorities: halving inflation...... stopping the boats.
    Interviewer: Do you think Boris Johnson will ever return to parliament?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our key priorities.......... (and on an on).

    It's painful. I remain of the view that Sunak is over-rated, and may well collapse into a gibbering heap under the spotlight of a GE campaign

    All politicians answer the question they wanted to be asked, rather than the one they were asked. And all politicians repeat the same talking points - by the time they've said it a thousand times, the general public is starting to listen.

    But a good politician is able to make it seem more natural. Blair, Boris, Cameron etc did it all the time but they did it in a way that carried their version of the public with them - even if it infuriated others. Sunak doesn't seem able to do that in the same way, and its a real weakness.

    But he's facing Keir Starmer who doesn't seem able to either. So it might cancel out.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663
    Scott_xP said:

    The Titanic was actually built from the finest materials (Admiralty spec steel for the hull etc) available on a cost plus basis* by Harland & Wolf. Who were one of the best yards in the UK.

    *H&W and White Star line were very closely aligned organisations.

    I read recently there is some speculation that not all of the rivets were as strong as they should have been
    There is a whole industry of creating "New" Titanic stories. No, the steel wasn't especially brittle. The transition temperature of the steel that the Titanic (and nearly all ships of the time) were built from had a transition temperature to its brittle phase at 20c.

    Which meant that from the moment it cooled the steel was in the brittle phase. That still was more brittle than wrought iron was a known thing (if not the reason) and was allowed for in the construction of ships.

    The other one was that the rivets in some areas of the ship were not easy to machine hammer - the riveting machine was something line a pneumatic drill. So sometime they were less well "knocked up". This was , again accounted for in design and construction, and replacing loose rivets a standard piece of work when you docked the ship.

    The famous Liberty ship problem was caused by 2 things. The newer steel had a much lower transition temperature - below zero. So when built, tested and often sailed, the steel was not in its brittle zone. So the design didn't take into account the effects, when exposed to sub zero temperatures. The other factor was welding - on a riveted ship, the cracks usually stop at a rivet line. On a welded ship, they keep on going....
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,305
    148grss said:

    I think if Sunak knew the vote was going to be so one sided it would have been easy to make the decision to vote for the report - if only seven Tory MPs were willing to vote to defend Johnson and they wanted to resign over the issue that feels like it would be part and parcel with the current state of the Tory party, whilst as you say this weakness pleases nobody. If this was an attempt to please backbenchers who like Johnson - where were they for this vote? And if it was an attempt to appease voters, I think he has the mood of the country wrong. And signs of weakness are bad for a PM in this kind of situation, it suggests to the Johnsonites that they can still push and it suggests to those that are tired of them that the PM will do nothing about them.

    Most of the cabinet went into hiding too including Rat Eyes, the Albino, Stupidly, Swella and Sir Wallace of the Shiny Pate.
  • Options
    On topic, no it was not a mistake. Nor would voting in favour have been a mistake either. It was irrelevant either way. All but six Tory MPs either voted in favour of the report, or abstained to let the report be accepted.

    Some people have been acting crazy here acting like anyone who abstained was like Trumpists storming the Capitol on 6 January. In our adversarial Parliamentary system if people from one party abstain while the opposition is voting then that's effectively siding with the opposition by stepping out of their way and letting them win by default.

    The number that matters is how many voted against and that was a pathetic, meagre 7.

    7 oddballs within a Government is nothing and is perfectly manageable in any party except one as small as the Lib Dems.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Sunak's name in focus groups is "Little Rishi" and "Weak Rishi".

    He's done very little to get away from that with these actions.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663
    148grss said:

    I think if Sunak knew the vote was going to be so one sided it would have been easy to make the decision to vote for the report - if only seven Tory MPs were willing to vote to defend Johnson and they wanted to resign over the issue that feels like it would be part and parcel with the current state of the Tory party, whilst as you say this weakness pleases nobody. If this was an attempt to please backbenchers who like Johnson - where were they for this vote? And if it was an attempt to appease voters, I think he has the mood of the country wrong. And signs of weakness are bad for a PM in this kind of situation, it suggests to the Johnsonites that they can still push and it suggests to those that are tired of them that the PM will do nothing about them.

    I think the calculation was "Not being seen to put the boot in". A whipped vote could turn into a Boris Martyrdom story, wheeling out the whole cabinet to vote for it, the same.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,432

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    Spot on.
    She actually started the modern NI peace process.

    It was a twin track effort - reaching out to the Irish government, killing off the hardline terrorists on both sides. The later was accomplished by using double agents - who rose to positions of power in the various organisations. And worked to kill off the hardliners who didn't want peace.
    The peace process was probably started (Downing Street Declaration, Anglo-Irish Agreement) by John Major and Albert Reynolds, two Prime Ministers with a background in street bookmaking. Today is the first day of Royal Ascot.
  • Options

    148grss said:

    I think if Sunak knew the vote was going to be so one sided it would have been easy to make the decision to vote for the report - if only seven Tory MPs were willing to vote to defend Johnson and they wanted to resign over the issue that feels like it would be part and parcel with the current state of the Tory party, whilst as you say this weakness pleases nobody. If this was an attempt to please backbenchers who like Johnson - where were they for this vote? And if it was an attempt to appease voters, I think he has the mood of the country wrong. And signs of weakness are bad for a PM in this kind of situation, it suggests to the Johnsonites that they can still push and it suggests to those that are tired of them that the PM will do nothing about them.

    I think the calculation was "Not being seen to put the boot in". A whipped vote could turn into a Boris Martyrdom story, wheeling out the whole cabinet to vote for it, the same.
    Yes. By his actions and letting it be a free vote, Rishi has shown quite authentically that Boris is an irrelevant has-been now who has no support within the Parliamentary Party.

    The rips of the bandage more than covering up real support with a fake whipped vote.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    On topic: yes.

    May made a good speech in yesterday's debate. It is the speech which Sunak should have made.

    The vote may not be uppermost in voters' minds. But it was an opportunity for Sunak to draw a clear line under the Johnson past and to retrieve some sense of integrity and honour for the Tory party for the future. A sort of clause 4 moment. And he fluffed it - because he is weak and because (and this comes as no surprise to me knowing what I know of the places where he worked before he became an MP) he has no instinctive understanding of what integrity and good judgment are and why they matter.

    So it will up to another Tory leader to rebuild the moral character of the Tory party. God knows who that will be.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,997

    148grss said:

    I think if Sunak knew the vote was going to be so one sided it would have been easy to make the decision to vote for the report - if only seven Tory MPs were willing to vote to defend Johnson and they wanted to resign over the issue that feels like it would be part and parcel with the current state of the Tory party, whilst as you say this weakness pleases nobody. If this was an attempt to please backbenchers who like Johnson - where were they for this vote? And if it was an attempt to appease voters, I think he has the mood of the country wrong. And signs of weakness are bad for a PM in this kind of situation, it suggests to the Johnsonites that they can still push and it suggests to those that are tired of them that the PM will do nothing about them.

    I think the calculation was "Not being seen to put the boot in". A whipped vote could turn into a Boris Martyrdom story, wheeling out the whole cabinet to vote for it, the same.
    Sure, but there is a difference between whipping and turning up for a free vote. Hell, he could have even turned up and abstained and made a case for abstention - but he didn't. He didn't face the issue. Which is a sign of weakness.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,010

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
    Yet Austerity beget Brexit....

    And Austerity wasn't really that necessary so my list would be

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss

    But once you get beyond that top 3 all the others have pros and cons that could put them anywhere in the list...
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,024

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
    It's difficult to separate the damage he did as PM from the damage he did as chancellor. We are still suffering from both, thirteen years later: economically, from the swollen state; and politically, from the left-wing placemen who have been peppered throughout the state and quasi-state. The Conservatives haven't really managed to deal with either (it should be acknowledged that it's very hard to do so, but they've barely touched the dial.)

    That's my view. However, one of the most furiously anti-Labour people I know (I don't know very many - my home is the middle class urban public sector north) reckons Gordon Brown the best chancellor of his lifetime (principally because as an owner of a SME GB allowed him more of his own money).
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,598
    LOL
    Interesting development. Could the Privileges Committee be made subject to court challenge - a Judicial Review - on its procedural irregularities? Parliament is above the law thanks to the 1689 Bill of Rights; but surely common law rights still apply?

    Nonsense. The Bill of Rights is statute law you silly boy
    https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1671068405657481216

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,286
    Most people won't care, they'll be more interested in why their mortgage is going to shoot up. Which Sunak will also cop the blame for.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
    Yet Austerity beget Brexit....

    And Austerity wasn't really that necessary so my list would be

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss

    But once you get beyond that top 3 all the others have pros and cons that could put them anywhere in the list...
    If the increase in government spending hadn't slowed, we would have been into a bond auction problem with government debt quite rapidly - The rate of increase in the debt was pretty extreme.

    How would you have dealt with that?
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,446

    148grss said:

    I think if Sunak knew the vote was going to be so one sided it would have been easy to make the decision to vote for the report - if only seven Tory MPs were willing to vote to defend Johnson and they wanted to resign over the issue that feels like it would be part and parcel with the current state of the Tory party, whilst as you say this weakness pleases nobody. If this was an attempt to please backbenchers who like Johnson - where were they for this vote? And if it was an attempt to appease voters, I think he has the mood of the country wrong. And signs of weakness are bad for a PM in this kind of situation, it suggests to the Johnsonites that they can still push and it suggests to those that are tired of them that the PM will do nothing about them.

    I think the calculation was "Not being seen to put the boot in". A whipped vote could turn into a Boris Martyrdom story, wheeling out the whole cabinet to vote for it, the same.
    Yes. By his actions and letting it be a free vote, Rishi has shown quite authentically that Boris is an irrelevant has-been now who has no support within the Parliamentary Party.

    The rips of the bandage more than covering up real support with a fake whipped vote.
    The fact that he couldn't be bothered to turn up and vote suggests he holds the Commons in as much contempt as Johnson does and that he has no understanding of the integrity required for his role as prime minister. I was actually quite shocked that he didn't vote to endorse the report, it is an utter failure of leadership on his part.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,036
    Nigelb said:

    LOL
    Interesting development. Could the Privileges Committee be made subject to court challenge - a Judicial Review - on its procedural irregularities? Parliament is above the law thanks to the 1689 Bill of Rights; but surely common law rights still apply?

    Nonsense. The Bill of Rights is statute law you silly boy
    https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1671068405657481216

    That is absolute nonsense on stilts!
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,432

    I don't think missing yesterday's vote is hugely important for Sunak. Rather, what will do for him in the end is his wooden and repetitive responses to questions, exemplified yesterday when he just kept repeating the same mantra "it's a matter for parliament". He does this all the time, just repeats the same tangential answer regardless of the precise question:

    Interviewer: PM, what did you have for lunch today?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our 5 key priorities: halving inflation...... stopping the boats.
    Interviewer: Do you think Boris Johnson will ever return to parliament?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our key priorities.......... (and on an on).

    It's painful. I remain of the view that Sunak is over-rated, and may well collapse into a gibbering heap under the spotlight of a GE campaign

    All politicians answer the question they wanted to be asked, rather than the one they were asked. And all politicians repeat the same talking points - by the time they've said it a thousand times, the general public is starting to listen.

    But a good politician is able to make it seem more natural. Blair, Boris, Cameron etc did it all the time but they did it in a way that carried their version of the public with them - even if it infuriated others. Sunak doesn't seem able to do that in the same way, and its a real weakness.

    But he's facing Keir Starmer who doesn't seem able to either. So it might cancel out.
    Rishi would do well to take PMQs more seriously and address the questions asked, rather than swing for the boundary with a Boris-style content-free rant. He needs to develop the skill of answering questions before the general election.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,289

    I don't think missing yesterday's vote is hugely important for Sunak. Rather, what will do for him in the end is his wooden and repetitive responses to questions, exemplified yesterday when he just kept repeating the same mantra "it's a matter for parliament". He does this all the time, just repeats the same tangential answer regardless of the precise question:

    Interviewer: PM, what did you have for lunch today?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our 5 key priorities: halving inflation...... stopping the boats.
    Interviewer: Do you think Boris Johnson will ever return to parliament?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our key priorities.......... (and on an on).

    It's painful. I remain of the view that Sunak is over-rated, and may well collapse into a gibbering heap under the spotlight of a GE campaign

    All politicians answer the question they wanted to be asked, rather than the one they were asked. And all politicians repeat the same talking points - by the time they've said it a thousand times, the general public is starting to listen.

    But a good politician is able to make it seem more natural. Blair, Boris, Cameron etc did it all the time but they did it in a way that carried their version of the public with them - even if it infuriated others. Sunak doesn't seem able to do that in the same way, and its a real weakness.

    But he's facing Keir Starmer who doesn't seem able to either. So it might cancel out.
    Yes. There is a real distinction between that small group of politicians you listen to, in some sort of positive way, because you want to know what they are saying and how they are saying it, and everyone else. (Obama, Blair, Hague, Thatcher, Ken Clarke, Kemi Badenoch (? jury is out), Bill but not Hilary Clinton).

    Few if any around at the moment, but a plethora of those you listen to with horror. Trump, Boris as he has become, JRM, a number of Lab and Tory MPs.

    Best around of a bad lot: Kate Forbes, Streeting, Gove, Liz Kendall, Penny M.

    The unfilled hole is that no-one at all can speak coherently and well about the development and meaning of the post Brexit UK.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,411

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    For most of Thatcher’s premiership, PIRA still thought they could win. Therefore resistance to them was a necessity.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,175
    Pulpstar said:

    Most people won't care, they'll be more interested in why their mortgage is going to shoot up. Which Sunak will also cop the blame for.

    I said exactly this in the prior thread. People care about what is impacting their life on a daily basis far more than this Westminster trivia and Newsnight is pretty irrelevant too. How many people watch it these days ?
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Most people won't care, they'll be more interested in why their mortgage is going to shoot up. Which Sunak will also cop the blame for.

    I said exactly this in the prior thread. People care about what is impacting their life on a daily basis far more than this Westminster trivia and Newsnight is pretty irrelevant too. How many people watch it these days ?
    Totally agreed.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,411
    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    My list would be

    Blair
    Major
    Thatcher
    Brown
    May
    Cameron
    Sunak
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Johnson
    Truss


    I mark Thatcher down because she squandered North Sea oil revenues, kept unemployment high for longer than necessary, failed to progress NI peace, tried to block the progress of social liberalism.

    Spot on.
    She actually started the modern NI peace process.

    It was a twin track effort - reaching out to the Irish government, killing off the hardline terrorists on both sides. The later was accomplished by using double agents - who rose to positions of power in the various organisations. And worked to kill off the hardliners who didn't want peace.
    Yes, agreed.
    I also give Major rather more credit than Blair. My problem with Mo Mowlam's approach was that she ended up rewarding the hardliners on both sides and marginalising the moderates.

    My favourite NI secretary was Roy Mason. Treat criminals as criminals.
    Mason was by far the best.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663
    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
    It's difficult to separate the damage he did as PM from the damage he did as chancellor. We are still suffering from both, thirteen years later: economically, from the swollen state; and politically, from the left-wing placemen who have been peppered throughout the state and quasi-state. The Conservatives haven't really managed to deal with either (it should be acknowledged that it's very hard to do so, but they've barely touched the dial.)

    That's my view. However, one of the most furiously anti-Labour people I know (I don't know very many - my home is the middle class urban public sector north) reckons Gordon Brown the best chancellor of his lifetime (principally because as an owner of a SME GB allowed him more of his own money).
    Its not "left wing", as ignorance masquerading as expertise.

    Just the other day, I was talking to a chap who works for the civil service, at a fairly senior level. His view is that Rishi is excessively interested in "wasting" money on investment in productivity. Which only increases unemployment.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,175

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
    But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.

    It is judging of them as PM not overall.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,446
    algarkirk said:

    I don't think missing yesterday's vote is hugely important for Sunak. Rather, what will do for him in the end is his wooden and repetitive responses to questions, exemplified yesterday when he just kept repeating the same mantra "it's a matter for parliament". He does this all the time, just repeats the same tangential answer regardless of the precise question:

    Interviewer: PM, what did you have for lunch today?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our 5 key priorities: halving inflation...... stopping the boats.
    Interviewer: Do you think Boris Johnson will ever return to parliament?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our key priorities.......... (and on an on).

    It's painful. I remain of the view that Sunak is over-rated, and may well collapse into a gibbering heap under the spotlight of a GE campaign

    All politicians answer the question they wanted to be asked, rather than the one they were asked. And all politicians repeat the same talking points - by the time they've said it a thousand times, the general public is starting to listen.

    But a good politician is able to make it seem more natural. Blair, Boris, Cameron etc did it all the time but they did it in a way that carried their version of the public with them - even if it infuriated others. Sunak doesn't seem able to do that in the same way, and its a real weakness.

    But he's facing Keir Starmer who doesn't seem able to either. So it might cancel out.
    Yes. There is a real distinction between that small group of politicians you listen to, in some sort of positive way, because you want to know what they are saying and how they are saying it, and everyone else. (Obama, Blair, Hague, Thatcher, Ken Clarke, Kemi Badenoch (? jury is out), Bill but not Hilary Clinton).

    Few if any around at the moment, but a plethora of those you listen to with horror. Trump, Boris as he has become, JRM, a number of Lab and Tory MPs.

    Best around of a bad lot: Kate Forbes, Streeting, Gove, Liz Kendall, Penny M.

    The unfilled hole is that no-one at all can speak coherently and well about the development and meaning of the post Brexit UK.
    That is a reflection on the nature of Brexit. Any politician who isn't an idiot thinks it is a historic mistake, but they know it's not yet politically correct to say it so we just get this meaningless guff.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,598

    148grss said:

    I think if Sunak knew the vote was going to be so one sided it would have been easy to make the decision to vote for the report - if only seven Tory MPs were willing to vote to defend Johnson and they wanted to resign over the issue that feels like it would be part and parcel with the current state of the Tory party, whilst as you say this weakness pleases nobody. If this was an attempt to please backbenchers who like Johnson - where were they for this vote? And if it was an attempt to appease voters, I think he has the mood of the country wrong. And signs of weakness are bad for a PM in this kind of situation, it suggests to the Johnsonites that they can still push and it suggests to those that are tired of them that the PM will do nothing about them.

    I think the calculation was "Not being seen to put the boot in". A whipped vote could turn into a Boris Martyrdom story, wheeling out the whole cabinet to vote for it, the same.
    He is nevertheless an MP.
    Not turning up was pitiful.

    And no one has argued for a whipped vote; that a straw man.
    Most cabinet members made their own - similarly poor - decisions.
  • Options
    FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,319
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic: yes.

    May made a good speech in yesterday's debate. It is the speech which Sunak should have made.

    The vote may not be uppermost in voters' minds. But it was an opportunity for Sunak to draw a clear line under the Johnson past and to retrieve some sense of integrity and honour for the Tory party for the future. A sort of clause 4 moment. And he fluffed it - because he is weak and because (and this comes as no surprise to me knowing what I know of the places where he worked before he became an MP) he has no instinctive understanding of what integrity and good judgment are and why they matter.

    So it will up to another Tory leader to rebuild the moral character of the Tory party. God knows who that will be.

    Maybe someone who’s not even born yet, or at least someone who’s not in parliament yet. I can’t see current Tory MP able to taken on the challenge, apart from maybe Aaron Bell if he hangs onto his seat.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,921
    DougSeal said:

    Nigelb said:

    LOL
    Interesting development. Could the Privileges Committee be made subject to court challenge - a Judicial Review - on its procedural irregularities? Parliament is above the law thanks to the 1689 Bill of Rights; but surely common law rights still apply?

    Nonsense. The Bill of Rights is statute law you silly boy
    https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1671068405657481216

    That is absolute nonsense on stilts!
    It’s from a Brexiteer who thought the GATT agreements made sure the EU had to give us a deal.

    What did you expect?
  • Options
    WestieWestie Posts: 426
    edited June 2023
    Off-topic, but on a topic that's frequently discussed here: I had lunch yesterday with a nurse who works at a residential mental hospital in England for children and adolescents aged 12-18. The institution contains a school. It does not specialise in caring for patients who have been diagnosed with any specific illness, except that every patient must have been diagnosed as having a mental illness for which they require residential care. About half of its ~40 patients are girls.

    She tells me that ALL of the girls apart from one who suffers from psychosis are identifying either as "they" for non-binary, or as "he".
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,289

    I don't think missing yesterday's vote is hugely important for Sunak. Rather, what will do for him in the end is his wooden and repetitive responses to questions, exemplified yesterday when he just kept repeating the same mantra "it's a matter for parliament". He does this all the time, just repeats the same tangential answer regardless of the precise question:

    Interviewer: PM, what did you have for lunch today?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our 5 key priorities: halving inflation...... stopping the boats.
    Interviewer: Do you think Boris Johnson will ever return to parliament?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our key priorities.......... (and on an on).

    It's painful. I remain of the view that Sunak is over-rated, and may well collapse into a gibbering heap under the spotlight of a GE campaign

    All politicians answer the question they wanted to be asked, rather than the one they were asked. And all politicians repeat the same talking points - by the time they've said it a thousand times, the general public is starting to listen.

    But a good politician is able to make it seem more natural. Blair, Boris, Cameron etc did it all the time but they did it in a way that carried their version of the public with them - even if it infuriated others. Sunak doesn't seem able to do that in the same way, and its a real weakness.

    But he's facing Keir Starmer who doesn't seem able to either. So it might cancel out.
    Rishi would do well to take PMQs more seriously and address the questions asked, rather than swing for the boundary with a Boris-style content-free rant. He needs to develop the skill of answering questions before the general election.
    In order to answer questions when in government (since 2010) you have to have a general narrative of how things are actually getting better for people in accord with you and your governing party's core principles and actual bedrock achievements. At the moment this is tricky.

    Try answering a basic and simple question like: What is the Tory policy and practice since 2010 on industrial strategy.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,598
    DougSeal said:

    Nigelb said:

    LOL
    Interesting development. Could the Privileges Committee be made subject to court challenge - a Judicial Review - on its procedural irregularities? Parliament is above the law thanks to the 1689 Bill of Rights; but surely common law rights still apply?

    Nonsense. The Bill of Rights is statute law you silly boy
    https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1671068405657481216

    That is absolute nonsense on stilts!
    That's why it was an Express story.
  • Options
    Taz said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
    But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.

    It is judging of them as PM not overall.
    Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.

    But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.

    That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,767
    Approaching Edgbaston and the weather is awful. Raining quite heavily atm.
  • Options
    FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,319
    Westie said:

    Off-topic, but on a topic that's frequently discussed here: I had lunch yesterday with a nurse who works at a residential mental hospital in England for children and adolescents aged 12-18. The institution contains a school. It does not specialise in caring for patients who have been diagnosed with any specific illness, other than that the illness must be mental and they must be diagnosed as needing residential care for it. About half of its ~40 patients are girls.

    She tells me that ALL of the girls apart from one who suffers from psychosis are identifying either as "they" for non-binary, or as "he".

    Is that a chicken and egg situation?
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    Approaching Edgbaston and the weather is awful. Raining quite heavily atm.

    Its a good job England have been so aggressive in this Test, with the declaration and the batting.

    Hopefully we get enough play to get the seven wickets. I believe the forecast is for it to dry up by lunchtime, hopefully that's not too little, too late.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,289

    algarkirk said:

    I don't think missing yesterday's vote is hugely important for Sunak. Rather, what will do for him in the end is his wooden and repetitive responses to questions, exemplified yesterday when he just kept repeating the same mantra "it's a matter for parliament". He does this all the time, just repeats the same tangential answer regardless of the precise question:

    Interviewer: PM, what did you have for lunch today?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our 5 key priorities: halving inflation...... stopping the boats.
    Interviewer: Do you think Boris Johnson will ever return to parliament?
    Sunak: What the British people want us to do is to deliver our key priorities.......... (and on an on).

    It's painful. I remain of the view that Sunak is over-rated, and may well collapse into a gibbering heap under the spotlight of a GE campaign

    All politicians answer the question they wanted to be asked, rather than the one they were asked. And all politicians repeat the same talking points - by the time they've said it a thousand times, the general public is starting to listen.

    But a good politician is able to make it seem more natural. Blair, Boris, Cameron etc did it all the time but they did it in a way that carried their version of the public with them - even if it infuriated others. Sunak doesn't seem able to do that in the same way, and its a real weakness.

    But he's facing Keir Starmer who doesn't seem able to either. So it might cancel out.
    Yes. There is a real distinction between that small group of politicians you listen to, in some sort of positive way, because you want to know what they are saying and how they are saying it, and everyone else. (Obama, Blair, Hague, Thatcher, Ken Clarke, Kemi Badenoch (? jury is out), Bill but not Hilary Clinton).

    Few if any around at the moment, but a plethora of those you listen to with horror. Trump, Boris as he has become, JRM, a number of Lab and Tory MPs.

    Best around of a bad lot: Kate Forbes, Streeting, Gove, Liz Kendall, Penny M.

    The unfilled hole is that no-one at all can speak coherently and well about the development and meaning of the post Brexit UK.
    That is a reflection on the nature of Brexit. Any politician who isn't an idiot thinks it is a historic mistake, but they know it's not yet politically correct to say it so we just get this meaningless guff.
    Two points. The historic mistake is not Brexit but failing to join EEA/EFTA, so as to maximally separate political union from trade relationships.

    Secondly, the leadership genius we need in parliament and government makes the weather of political correctness, and doesn't just follow it.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,024
    Westie said:

    Off-topic, but on a topic that's frequently discussed here: I had lunch yesterday with a nurse who works at a residential mental hospital in England for children and adolescents aged 12-18. The institution contains a school. It does not specialise in caring for patients who have been diagnosed with any specific illness, except that a patient's illness must be mental and they must be diagnosed as needing residential care for it. About half of its ~40 patients are girls.

    She tells me that ALL of the girls apart from one who suffers from psychosis are identifying either as "they" for non-binary, or as "he".

    On which subject, the story yesterday about the school in Sussex where the teacher was sacked for refusing to accede to the child's demand to be identified as a cat - surely there is more to the story than this? As my wife said, it's almost impossible to sack a teacher: this seems a very strange reason to lose a job.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,997

    On topic, no it was not a mistake. Nor would voting in favour have been a mistake either. It was irrelevant either way. All but six Tory MPs either voted in favour of the report, or abstained to let the report be accepted.

    Some people have been acting crazy here acting like anyone who abstained was like Trumpists storming the Capitol on 6 January. In our adversarial Parliamentary system if people from one party abstain while the opposition is voting then that's effectively siding with the opposition by stepping out of their way and letting them win by default.

    The number that matters is how many voted against and that was a pathetic, meagre 7.

    7 oddballs within a Government is nothing and is perfectly manageable in any party except one as small as the Lib Dems.

    I don't think it is on par with that, but I do think it is a sign of weakness. When there was such an overwhelming vote against Johnson in the end, not attending the vote sends a message all of it's own. If they wanted to defend him they should have been there and made that argument, if they wanted to condemn him the same, and if they truly thought abstention was the right position they should have defended that. Just not attending is cowardly. And it is even more so for the PM, who has little political capital as it is. This won't appease the public, they either don't care or have a firm view, this won't appease the house, because he didn't really explain himself, and it almost certainly didn't appease his backbenchers, who are split on the issue and probably could have done with some leadership.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,663
    Cookie said:

    Westie said:

    Off-topic, but on a topic that's frequently discussed here: I had lunch yesterday with a nurse who works at a residential mental hospital in England for children and adolescents aged 12-18. The institution contains a school. It does not specialise in caring for patients who have been diagnosed with any specific illness, except that a patient's illness must be mental and they must be diagnosed as needing residential care for it. About half of its ~40 patients are girls.

    She tells me that ALL of the girls apart from one who suffers from psychosis are identifying either as "they" for non-binary, or as "he".

    On which subject, the story yesterday about the school in Sussex where the teacher was sacked for refusing to accede to the child's demand to be identified as a cat - surely there is more to the story than this? As my wife said, it's almost impossible to sack a teacher: this seems a very strange reason to lose a job.
    There is always more to the story - like the famous one about a headmaster "banning Muslim dress for girls".
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,432

    Taz said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
    But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.

    It is judging of them as PM not overall.
    Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.

    But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.

    That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
    On the one hand, the great financial centres, the City and Wall Street, on the other hand, Iceland, a country of less than half a million people. You also miss that it was the Federal Reserve's decision not to bail out Lehman Brothers (and, if you must, our Labour government's refusal to let Barclays take it over) that tipped the world into crisis.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,917
    edited June 2023
    Cookie said:

    Westie said:

    Off-topic, but on a topic that's frequently discussed here: I had lunch yesterday with a nurse who works at a residential mental hospital in England for children and adolescents aged 12-18. The institution contains a school. It does not specialise in caring for patients who have been diagnosed with any specific illness, except that a patient's illness must be mental and they must be diagnosed as needing residential care for it. About half of its ~40 patients are girls.

    She tells me that ALL of the girls apart from one who suffers from psychosis are identifying either as "they" for non-binary, or as "he".

    On which subject, the story yesterday about the school in Sussex where the teacher was sacked for refusing to accede to the child's demand to be identified as a cat - surely there is more to the story than this? As my wife said, it's almost impossible to sack a teacher: this seems a very strange reason to lose a job.
    Reading the transcript the teacher sounds very Deidre Spart.

    I suppose some people are just designed to say things in such a way, and with such an attitude, that instantly makes people adopt the opposite position.

    Emma Thompson is one such better known example of this.
  • Options
    WestieWestie Posts: 426

    Taz said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    That list in full (since 1979)

    Thatcher
    Blair
    Major
    Cameron
    May
    Brown
    Sunak
    Johnson
    Truss

    You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
    My list would be

    Blair (despite Iraq)
    Thatcher
    Major
    Brown
    May
    Sunak
    Cameron
    Johnson
    Truss
    Fun game.

    My list would be.

    Thatcher
    Cameron
    Major
    Johnson
    Blair
    Sunak
    May
    Truss
    Brown

    And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
    Truss above Brown for what reason? Colour of rosette?
    No, not colour of rosette, I put Blair ahead of Sunak, May and Truss.

    Truss ahead of Brown as she was removed before she did too much damage. She was bad, I called for her to resign before she did, but she was quickly ousted before much worse happened.

    Her Premiership was like stepping on a piece of Lego. Short and painful but quickly over.

    The legacy of Gordon Brown was far more toxic and far more long-lasting. It needed a decade of austerity to clean up his mess.
    But the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown was more due to his time as Chancellor than that of his time as PM.

    It is judging of them as PM not overall.
    Indeed, it is hard to separate the two, which is why I rated Blair down in only 5th spot, he's down-rated due to Brown's legacy as Chancellor. Had it not been for Brown as Chancellor I'd have Blair up higher.

    But Brown made matters even worse as PM. He completely botched the financial crisis by bailing out the failed banks, rather than allowing them to go bust and protecting guaranteed creditors instead like Iceland did.

    That added much more debt than was necessary to an already bad problem and completely warped the market by suggesting that firms were too big to fail and making moral hazard a major problem.
    Don't forget Brown is a war criminal who should be in the dock at the Hague alongside Blair.

    As for Cameron, in his farewell speech to the Commons he focused on the introduction of gay marriage as a major achievement of his seven years in office. He only looks good compared with the four incompetents who succeeded him. And insofar as he was on the right side of the argument about EU membership.
  • Options
    Cookie said:

    Westie said:

    Off-topic, but on a topic that's frequently discussed here: I had lunch yesterday with a nurse who works at a residential mental hospital in England for children and adolescents aged 12-18. The institution contains a school. It does not specialise in caring for patients who have been diagnosed with any specific illness, except that a patient's illness must be mental and they must be diagnosed as needing residential care for it. About half of its ~40 patients are girls.

    She tells me that ALL of the girls apart from one who suffers from psychosis are identifying either as "they" for non-binary, or as "he".

    On which subject, the story yesterday about the school in Sussex where the teacher was sacked for refusing to accede to the child's demand to be identified as a cat - surely there is more to the story than this? As my wife said, it's almost impossible to sack a teacher: this seems a very strange reason to lose a job.
    I haven't seen or heard that story before, but it instantly smells like bovine manure.

    Reminds me of the nutjob who was recently claiming to have been sacked as a teacher for "misgendering" a pupil, then went to speak to Piers Morgan to say that all sinners should get the death penalty ...
  • Options
    UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 827
    DougSeal said:

    Nigelb said:

    LOL
    Interesting development. Could the Privileges Committee be made subject to court challenge - a Judicial Review - on its procedural irregularities? Parliament is above the law thanks to the 1689 Bill of Rights; but surely common law rights still apply?

    Nonsense. The Bill of Rights is statute law you silly boy
    https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1671068405657481216

    That is absolute nonsense on stilts!
    Sounds very Freemen of the Land kind of stuff. They seem to love declaring the supremacy of the 'Common Law'.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,917

    Cookie said:

    Westie said:

    Off-topic, but on a topic that's frequently discussed here: I had lunch yesterday with a nurse who works at a residential mental hospital in England for children and adolescents aged 12-18. The institution contains a school. It does not specialise in caring for patients who have been diagnosed with any specific illness, except that a patient's illness must be mental and they must be diagnosed as needing residential care for it. About half of its ~40 patients are girls.

    She tells me that ALL of the girls apart from one who suffers from psychosis are identifying either as "they" for non-binary, or as "he".

    On which subject, the story yesterday about the school in Sussex where the teacher was sacked for refusing to accede to the child's demand to be identified as a cat - surely there is more to the story than this? As my wife said, it's almost impossible to sack a teacher: this seems a very strange reason to lose a job.
    I haven't seen or heard that story before, but it instantly smells like bovine manure.

    Reminds me of the nutjob who was recently claiming to have been sacked as a teacher for "misgendering" a pupil, then went to speak to Piers Morgan to say that all sinners should get the death penalty ...
    The teacher went off on one at a pupil who said there were only two genders.

    https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/east-sussex-teacher-calls-pupils-opinion-despicable-after-classmates-claim-she-identifies-as-a-cat-4187907
This discussion has been closed.