Don't let Leon see that. He is convinced only 3 bumpkins and a scrofulous dog called Bobby wanted Braverman sacked.
Too late. I’ve seen it
Did I ever say anything different to you? I strongly support Braverman’s stand on the Wokeness but I say - on this thread - she is “clumsy, naive, foolish, maladroit” and much else
I can see why you might sack her. But then, she is the only minister with the guts to stand up to the left and say hard but true things. That’s why she still has the support of half the Tories - as we see in this poll
Sunak has alienated all those Tories - and for what? What does he gain? Does he honestly think millions of grateful people will flock back to the Tories now she’s gone and David Duke of Brexit* has got his feet up in Chevening?
I predict the polls will not shift significantly at all, but Tory infighting will get worse. So: a net negative. That’s bad politics
*that’s mine and I demand copyright
Given they were 99% certain to lose the next election I would suggest that, if they want to drag the party back towards the centre, it would be better (for them rather than the country) to get the infighting happening now and purge the ERG types rather than wait until after the election when they are in Opposition and the Right Wing are far more likely to win the leadership.
And much of what she says is not true. People don't generally choose to live on the streets. We should not ban protests just because we disagree with the opinions being expressed. It is not the fault of the ECHR if the UK Supreme Court says we are not allowed to send asylum seekers to Africa.
Braverman was the Bully XL of politics and it was long overdue for her to be defanged.
I had already said in the last thread this wouldn't change the polls. But that doesn't mean it was not worth doing in its own right.
She was right to spot the way homeless cities arise, and warn about it, her language was offensively wrong. AFAIK she did not explicitly call for protests to be banned?
Am I the only person that actually read her Times article about protests? This is what she actually says, she actually says the opposite of "ban them", at least in this article:
"The right to protest in public is a cornerstone of democracy. That is why peaceful marches are never banned and even controversial and disruptive ones are policed rather than blocked.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do the authorities step in. The way the law works is clear: if a chief constable believes that there is a serious risk of disorder which the police will struggle to contain, he or she can ask the home secretary to ban a march. Even then, a static protest can take place."
She goes on:
"Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law? I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.
Football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically-connected minority groups who are favoured by the left. It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they are likely to get than whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority. The government has a duty to take a broader view.
If the march goes ahead this weekend, the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder."
The whole point is a call for even-handed policing. And after what I saw on Saturday, I would say she has been vindicated, the police were far tougher on the 300 footie hoons than on the 30,000 dodgy types in the 300,000 Pro-Pal march; they were admirably calm, they were not even-handed
The ECHR is outdated junk and we should leave it if it prevents us policing our borders properly
But guess what, there have been pro-Palestinian marches all over the country including London for the last month and none of them showed a fraction of the violence that was displayed by the Right wing mobs on Saturday.
You went out on Saturday with an agenda and you fulfilled it. That says far more about you than it does about either side in the protests and it bears little or no relation to reality.
Alternatively, you chould show a tiny shred of humility and admit you got that bit wrong about Braverman? Rather than ad hominem-ing me (ineptly)?
Up to you
I wasn't wrong. You were. No humility needed on my side. Braverman was absolutely desperate for some real trouble from the Pro-Palestinian march on Saturday to justify her attempts to put political pressure on the police. When it didn't happen she was toast. There was no way Sunak would have risked dumping her if there had been any possible defence she could have mounted and the fact the only serious trouble came from the 'poor little football fans' sealed her fate. You are just too arrogant to admit it.
Dick Tyndall, of PB Knows not humility Which is quite a surprise Given his penile size
OH YES. I DID THAT IN FIFTEEN SECONDS
It shows.
Edit. I was going to say don't give up the day job but then I remembered this was your day job so you have my sympathies.
Wait til you see where my day job takes me tomorrow
Hopefully somewhere other than PB. It is going to be yet another day of 100 plus posts. Have you no life outside of PB.
I multitask
Do you think I just sit here posting and nothing else?
Right now I am
1. On the phone to HMRC (on hold) 2. Arranging a Xmas party 3. Packing for tomorrow 4. Trying to think of a new name for my latest flint 5. Paying a ridiculously annoying speeding fine from my recent trip to Lozere in Languedoc (58kph in a 50kph zone. Vraiment?)
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
No. Should we be? Lords have held offices of state many, many times.
Seldom 'great offices' though - I think we ought to be a bit bothered. Our system of ministerial accountability revolves to a considerable extent on the oversight of the Commons. And there's a lot on in his brief, to say the least.
It goes to show the degree of contempt in which the Conservatives [sic] hold constitutional convention that it doesn't really pass a great deal of comment.
Sir Kier Starmer’s Favourite Pyjamas Are grey flanellette. But apart from that I’ll go out on a limb And say I can’t think of a single interesting thing about him.
Don't let Leon see that. He is convinced only 3 bumpkins and a scrofulous dog called Bobby wanted Braverman sacked.
Too late. I’ve seen it
Did I ever say anything different to you? I strongly support Braverman’s stand on the Wokeness but I say - on this thread - she is “clumsy, naive, foolish, maladroit” and much else
I can see why you might sack her. But then, she is the only minister with the guts to stand up to the left and say hard but true things. That’s why she still has the support of half the Tories - as we see in this poll
Sunak has alienated all those Tories - and for what? What does he gain? Does he honestly think millions of grateful people will flock back to the Tories now she’s gone and David Duke of Brexit* has got his feet up in Chevening?
I predict the polls will not shift significantly at all, but Tory infighting will get worse. So: a net negative. That’s bad politics
*that’s mine and I demand copyright
Given they were 99% certain to lose the next election I would suggest that, if they want to drag the party back towards the centre, it would be better (for them rather than the country) to get the infighting happening now and purge the ERG types rather than wait until after the election when they are in Opposition and the Right Wing are far more likely to win the leadership.
And much of what she says is not true. People don't generally choose to live on the streets. We should not ban protests just because we disagree with the opinions being expressed. It is not the fault of the ECHR if the UK Supreme Court says we are not allowed to send asylum seekers to Africa.
Braverman was the Bully XL of politics and it was long overdue for her to be defanged.
I had already said in the last thread this wouldn't change the polls. But that doesn't mean it was not worth doing in its own right.
She was right to spot the way homeless cities arise, and warn about it, her language was offensively wrong. AFAIK she did not explicitly call for protests to be banned?
Am I the only person that actually read her Times article about protests? This is what she actually says, she actually says the opposite of "ban them", at least in this article:
"The right to protest in public is a cornerstone of democracy. That is why peaceful marches are never banned and even controversial and disruptive ones are policed rather than blocked.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do the authorities step in. The way the law works is clear: if a chief constable believes that there is a serious risk of disorder which the police will struggle to contain, he or she can ask the home secretary to ban a march. Even then, a static protest can take place."
She goes on:
"Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law? I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.
Football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically-connected minority groups who are favoured by the left. It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they are likely to get than whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority. The government has a duty to take a broader view.
If the march goes ahead this weekend, the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder."
The whole point is a call for even-handed policing. And after what I saw on Saturday, I would say she has been vindicated, the police were far tougher on the 300 footie hoons than on the 30,000 dodgy types in the 300,000 Pro-Pal march; they were admirably calm, they were not even-handed
The ECHR is outdated junk and we should leave it if it prevents us policing our borders properly
Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law?"
This just isn't true. I have been at protests where street fash are clearly there to get boozed up and start a fight - whereas the vast majority of reports, even from those who dislike the pro-Palestinian marches, noted how much of a family vibe there was to the entire thing this Saturday.
The fact is there weren't that many dodgy types in the march - unless your definition of dodgy goes into the absurd (which as a right wing nut job, I'm sure yours does). That there was so much scrutiny of the march, and has been for months, and the number of "problematic" signs and such is so few is a testament to this. The only thing that allows people to paint with such a broad brush is via the absurd belief that "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" is a call for a genocide of Jewish Israelis.
Don't let Leon see that. He is convinced only 3 bumpkins and a scrofulous dog called Bobby wanted Braverman sacked.
Too late. I’ve seen it
Did I ever say anything different to you? I strongly support Braverman’s stand on the Wokeness but I say - on this thread - she is “clumsy, naive, foolish, maladroit” and much else
I can see why you might sack her. But then, she is the only minister with the guts to stand up to the left and say hard but true things. That’s why she still has the support of half the Tories - as we see in this poll
Sunak has alienated all those Tories - and for what? What does he gain? Does he honestly think millions of grateful people will flock back to the Tories now she’s gone and David Duke of Brexit* has got his feet up in Chevening?
I predict the polls will not shift significantly at all, but Tory infighting will get worse. So: a net negative. That’s bad politics
*that’s mine and I demand copyright
Given they were 99% certain to lose the next election I would suggest that, if they want to drag the party back towards the centre, it would be better (for them rather than the country) to get the infighting happening now and purge the ERG types rather than wait until after the election when they are in Opposition and the Right Wing are far more likely to win the leadership.
And much of what she says is not true. People don't generally choose to live on the streets. We should not ban protests just because we disagree with the opinions being expressed. It is not the fault of the ECHR if the UK Supreme Court says we are not allowed to send asylum seekers to Africa.
Braverman was the Bully XL of politics and it was long overdue for her to be defanged.
I had already said in the last thread this wouldn't change the polls. But that doesn't mean it was not worth doing in its own right.
She was right to spot the way homeless cities arise, and warn about it, her language was offensively wrong. AFAIK she did not explicitly call for protests to be banned?
Am I the only person that actually read her Times article about protests? This is what she actually says, she actually says the opposite of "ban them", at least in this article:
"The right to protest in public is a cornerstone of democracy. That is why peaceful marches are never banned and even controversial and disruptive ones are policed rather than blocked.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do the authorities step in. The way the law works is clear: if a chief constable believes that there is a serious risk of disorder which the police will struggle to contain, he or she can ask the home secretary to ban a march. Even then, a static protest can take place."
She goes on:
"Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law? I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.
Football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically-connected minority groups who are favoured by the left. It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they are likely to get than whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority. The government has a duty to take a broader view.
If the march goes ahead this weekend, the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder."
The whole point is a call for even-handed policing. And after what I saw on Saturday, I would say she has been vindicated, the police were far tougher on the 300 footie hoons than on the 30,000 dodgy types in the 300,000 Pro-Pal march; they were admirably calm, they were not even-handed
The ECHR is outdated junk and we should leave it if it prevents us policing our borders properly
But guess what, there have been pro-Palestinian marches all over the country including London for the last month and none of them showed a fraction of the violence that was displayed by the Right wing mobs on Saturday.
You went out on Saturday with an agenda and you fulfilled it. That says far more about you than it does about either side in the protests and it bears little or no relation to reality.
Alternatively, you chould show a tiny shred of humility and admit you got that bit wrong about Braverman? Rather than ad hominem-ing me (ineptly)?
Up to you
I wasn't wrong. You were. No humility needed on my side. Braverman was absolutely desperate for some real trouble from the Pro-Palestinian march on Saturday to justify her attempts to put political pressure on the police. When it didn't happen she was toast. There was no way Sunak would have risked dumping her if there had been any possible defence she could have mounted and the fact the only serious trouble came from the 'poor little football fans' sealed her fate. You are just too arrogant to admit it.
Dick Tyndall, of PB Knows not humility Which is quite a surprise Given his penile size
OH YES. I DID THAT IN FIFTEEN SECONDS
It shows.
Edit. I was going to say don't give up the day job but then I remembered this was your day job so you have my sympathies.
Wait til you see where my day job takes me tomorrow
Hopefully somewhere other than PB. It is going to be yet another day of 100 plus posts. Have you no life outside of PB.
I multitask
Do you think I just sit here posting and nothing else?
Right now I am
1. On the phone to HMRC (on hold) 2. Arranging a Xmas party 3. Packing for tomorrow 4. Trying to think of a new name for my latest flint 5. Paying a ridiculously annoying speeding fine from my recent trip to Lozere in Languedoc (58kph in a 50kph zone. Vraiment?)
AND
6. composing stupid clerihews on PB
4. Call it the “ZOWIE”. It’s the spy organisation from “In like Flint” whilst having an onomatopoeic resonance with the sound of the thrills from the user.
Don't let Leon see that. He is convinced only 3 bumpkins and a scrofulous dog called Bobby wanted Braverman sacked.
Too late. I’ve seen it
Did I ever say anything different to you? I strongly support Braverman’s stand on the Wokeness but I say - on this thread - she is “clumsy, naive, foolish, maladroit” and much else
I can see why you might sack her. But then, she is the only minister with the guts to stand up to the left and say hard but true things. That’s why she still has the support of half the Tories - as we see in this poll
Sunak has alienated all those Tories - and for what? What does he gain? Does he honestly think millions of grateful people will flock back to the Tories now she’s gone and David Duke of Brexit* has got his feet up in Chevening?
I predict the polls will not shift significantly at all, but Tory infighting will get worse. So: a net negative. That’s bad politics
*that’s mine and I demand copyright
Given they were 99% certain to lose the next election I would suggest that, if they want to drag the party back towards the centre, it would be better (for them rather than the country) to get the infighting happening now and purge the ERG types rather than wait until after the election when they are in Opposition and the Right Wing are far more likely to win the leadership.
And much of what she says is not true. People don't generally choose to live on the streets. We should not ban protests just because we disagree with the opinions being expressed. It is not the fault of the ECHR if the UK Supreme Court says we are not allowed to send asylum seekers to Africa.
Braverman was the Bully XL of politics and it was long overdue for her to be defanged.
I had already said in the last thread this wouldn't change the polls. But that doesn't mean it was not worth doing in its own right.
She was right to spot the way homeless cities arise, and warn about it, her language was offensively wrong. AFAIK she did not explicitly call for protests to be banned?
Am I the only person that actually read her Times article about protests? This is what she actually says, she actually says the opposite of "ban them", at least in this article:
"The right to protest in public is a cornerstone of democracy. That is why peaceful marches are never banned and even controversial and disruptive ones are policed rather than blocked.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do the authorities step in. The way the law works is clear: if a chief constable believes that there is a serious risk of disorder which the police will struggle to contain, he or she can ask the home secretary to ban a march. Even then, a static protest can take place."
She goes on:
"Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law? I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.
Football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically-connected minority groups who are favoured by the left. It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they are likely to get than whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority. The government has a duty to take a broader view.
If the march goes ahead this weekend, the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder."
The whole point is a call for even-handed policing. And after what I saw on Saturday, I would say she has been vindicated, the police were far tougher on the 300 footie hoons than on the 30,000 dodgy types in the 300,000 Pro-Pal march; they were admirably calm, they were not even-handed
The ECHR is outdated junk and we should leave it if it prevents us policing our borders properly
But guess what, there have been pro-Palestinian marches all over the country including London for the last month and none of them showed a fraction of the violence that was displayed by the Right wing mobs on Saturday.
You went out on Saturday with an agenda and you fulfilled it. That says far more about you than it does about either side in the protests and it bears little or no relation to reality.
Alternatively, you chould show a tiny shred of humility and admit you got that bit wrong about Braverman? Rather than ad hominem-ing me (ineptly)?
Up to you
I wasn't wrong. You were. No humility needed on my side. Braverman was absolutely desperate for some real trouble from the Pro-Palestinian march on Saturday to justify her attempts to put political pressure on the police. When it didn't happen she was toast. There was no way Sunak would have risked dumping her if there had been any possible defence she could have mounted and the fact the only serious trouble came from the 'poor little football fans' sealed her fate. You are just too arrogant to admit it.
Dick Tyndall, of PB Knows not humility Which is quite a surprise Given his penile size
OH YES. I DID THAT IN FIFTEEN SECONDS
It shows.
Edit. I was going to say don't give up the day job but then I remembered this was your day job so you have my sympathies.
It is quite possible that @Leon thinks that 15 seconds is a substantial period of time.
Don't let Leon see that. He is convinced only 3 bumpkins and a scrofulous dog called Bobby wanted Braverman sacked.
Too late. I’ve seen it
Did I ever say anything different to you? I strongly support Braverman’s stand on the Wokeness but I say - on this thread - she is “clumsy, naive, foolish, maladroit” and much else
I can see why you might sack her. But then, she is the only minister with the guts to stand up to the left and say hard but true things. That’s why she still has the support of half the Tories - as we see in this poll
Sunak has alienated all those Tories - and for what? What does he gain? Does he honestly think millions of grateful people will flock back to the Tories now she’s gone and David Duke of Brexit* has got his feet up in Chevening?
I predict the polls will not shift significantly at all, but Tory infighting will get worse. So: a net negative. That’s bad politics
*that’s mine and I demand copyright
Given they were 99% certain to lose the next election I would suggest that, if they want to drag the party back towards the centre, it would be better (for them rather than the country) to get the infighting happening now and purge the ERG types rather than wait until after the election when they are in Opposition and the Right Wing are far more likely to win the leadership.
And much of what she says is not true. People don't generally choose to live on the streets. We should not ban protests just because we disagree with the opinions being expressed. It is not the fault of the ECHR if the UK Supreme Court says we are not allowed to send asylum seekers to Africa.
Braverman was the Bully XL of politics and it was long overdue for her to be defanged.
I had already said in the last thread this wouldn't change the polls. But that doesn't mean it was not worth doing in its own right.
She was right to spot the way homeless cities arise, and warn about it, her language was offensively wrong. AFAIK she did not explicitly call for protests to be banned?
Am I the only person that actually read her Times article about protests? This is what she actually says, she actually says the opposite of "ban them", at least in this article:
"The right to protest in public is a cornerstone of democracy. That is why peaceful marches are never banned and even controversial and disruptive ones are policed rather than blocked.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do the authorities step in. The way the law works is clear: if a chief constable believes that there is a serious risk of disorder which the police will struggle to contain, he or she can ask the home secretary to ban a march. Even then, a static protest can take place."
She goes on:
"Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law? I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.
Football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically-connected minority groups who are favoured by the left. It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they are likely to get than whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority. The government has a duty to take a broader view.
If the march goes ahead this weekend, the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder."
The whole point is a call for even-handed policing. And after what I saw on Saturday, I would say she has been vindicated, the police were far tougher on the 300 footie hoons than on the 30,000 dodgy types in the 300,000 Pro-Pal march; they were admirably calm, they were not even-handed
The ECHR is outdated junk and we should leave it if it prevents us policing our borders properly
Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law?"
This just isn't true. I have been at protests where street fash are clearly there to get boozed up and start a fight - whereas the vast majority of reports, even from those who dislike the pro-Palestinian marches, noted how much of a family vibe there was to the entire thing this Saturday.
The fact is there weren't that many dodgy types in the march - unless your definition of dodgy goes into the absurd (which as a right wing nut job, I'm sure yours does). That there was so much scrutiny of the march, and has been for months, and the number of "problematic" signs and such is so few is a testament to this. The only thing that allows people to paint with such a broad brush is via the absurd belief that "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" is a call for a genocide of Jewish Israelis.
"noted how much of a family vibe there was to the entire thing this Saturday."
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
No.
I am.
350 Tory MPs and not one of them is suitable to be Foreign Secretary.
It's understandable why Rishi went for a left field appointment to solve a big problem but I don't think the idea will have won him any friends in Parliament.
I was wondering if it could be Sir Wavin Gilliamson? I mean, he is an MP (and Dr No is described explicitly as 'never wanted to be an MP' - a wording that is quite an odd construction), but perhaps that's to provide him with some anonymity?
The description given of 'he went to Dougie's sex parties but not to participate, just to observe and take notes' seems a little Williamson-esque.
Speaking of entertainment and politics, the National Football League honored Congressional Medal of Honor Winners this weekend: "ARLINGTON, Texas (FOX 9) - Look for many tributes to America’s veterans during the NFL games this weekend. But immediately following the Vikings vs. Saints game on FOX 9, the NFL and FOX Sports will air a special halftime salute to Medal of Honor recipients during the Cowboys game against the Giants at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas."
At the Seahawks/Commanders game, the coaches were wearing Army brown sweat shirts. (There may have been other tributes, but I didn't watch the entire game, so I didn't see them, if there were.)
Perhaps Hollywood can learn something from those events.
You guys play the national anthem before every single game. The number of flags is off the charts. It's amazing there is any time for any sport shoehorned in given the many and varied overt displays of patriotism.
See also the Nation with the World series that only American teams (plus one Canadian) are allowed to enter...
You do have a point, sorta.
As the link below shows, in 2022 nearly 30% of players in Major League Baseball (MLB) hailed from outside the USA.
Note that West Indies, Caribbean and Mexico collective accounted for 26% of MLB players.
Japan accounted for just half of 1% (7 players) despite having a VERY robust baseball culture, including its own Nippon Professional Baseball league, which has contributed over 60 players to MLB.
Personally think there's excellent case, for making top Japanese teams eligible for the World Series, but ways and means are unclear to say the least.
indeed they are more likely to draw us closer to the EU
If you want the party to split and splinter then that's exactly what you should dial-up. That's the real fear of a good chunk of the members and the parliamentary party and it drives polarisation.
Not a helpful comment. And I don't think it's true either.
Just to clarify my position
I do not want to rejoin but I do want a closer and friendlier relationship with the EU
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
No.
The extent to which government in the UK is dominated by elected representatives is distinctive and slightly unusual. We tend to assume this is natural but there is no special reason why this is so.
Elected parliaments and government are two completely different functions. I like the way we generally do things, that close link between MPs and government, but the House of Commons is so full of people with limited ability that it is clearly getting harder to find a government from them. That bit is worrying.
Most people of very high ability don't plan to spend their career pretending to support a party whose members are mostly dullards, and lying to get elected.
Speaking of entertainment and politics, the National Football League honored Congressional Medal of Honor Winners this weekend: "ARLINGTON, Texas (FOX 9) - Look for many tributes to America’s veterans during the NFL games this weekend. But immediately following the Vikings vs. Saints game on FOX 9, the NFL and FOX Sports will air a special halftime salute to Medal of Honor recipients during the Cowboys game against the Giants at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas."
At the Seahawks/Commanders game, the coaches were wearing Army brown sweat shirts. (There may have been other tributes, but I didn't watch the entire game, so I didn't see them, if there were.)
Perhaps Hollywood can learn something from those events.
You guys play the national anthem before every single game. The number of flags is off the charts. It's amazing there is any time for any sport shoehorned in given the many and varied overt displays of patriotism.
Have you ever attended a sporting event in the USA?
Yes -as a spectator and participant. I've been to quite a few UConn Huskies basketball and football (gridiron) games with the wife's family, the Yale/Harvard game at Thanksgiving, as well as the considerably less prestigious football program of the University of New Haven - where my wife taught. I've also been taken to see the Rangers at MSG. Not really your stereotypical American sport but I once was a ringer in a rugby 7s event in Acton, MA.
Not IN the USA admittedly, but I went to two of the NFL's International Series games at Wembley before the pandemic and I'm a 49ers fan and have Gamepass which gives me the whole shebang.
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
No. Should we be? Lords have held offices of state many, many times.
Quite a while since we had such a senior Cabinet minister from the Lords, though.
And there is the way that one of the aims of you-know-what was to Strengthen Democracy, it sits uncomfortably.
It's good that someone like Suella has been indirectly replaced by someone like Dave.
It's not good that there isn't really anyone like Dave on the Conservative benches in the Commons.
I have a pretty strong personal conviction that the unelected HoL needs to go; we need a democratically accountable second chamber.
And while it's not the main reason, the fact that the PM can randomly giving someone a peerage to shoehorn them into a senior cabinet post really shows what a travesty it is.
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
No.
The extent to which government in the UK is dominated by elected representatives is distinctive and slightly unusual. We tend to assume this is natural but there is no special reason why this is so.
Elected parliaments and government are two completely different functions. I like the way we generally do things, that close link between MPs and government, but the House of Commons is so full of people with limited ability that it is clearly getting harder to find a government from them. That bit is worrying.
Most people of very high ability don't plan to spend their career pretending to support a party whose members are mostly dullards, and lying to get elected.
There's definitely truth to this (illustrated to comic effect in In The Loop when the UK minister bafflingly has to deal with a constituent's collapsed wall while in DC).
Sir Kier Starmer’s Favourite Pyjamas Are grey flanellette. But apart from that I’ll go out on a limb And say I can’t think of a single interesting thing about him.
Donkey sanctuary supporter/funder?
Feel free to try to wangle that into four lines of verse!
Sir Kier Starmer’s Favourite Pyjamas Are grey flanellette. But apart from that I’ll go out on a limb And say I can’t think of a single interesting thing about him.
Donkey sanctuary supporter/funder?
Feel free to try to wangle that into four lines of verse!
I am now reading every comment as a potential clerihew. This is not a productive use of my brain
Don't let Leon see that. He is convinced only 3 bumpkins and a scrofulous dog called Bobby wanted Braverman sacked.
Too late. I’ve seen it
Did I ever say anything different to you? I strongly support Braverman’s stand on the Wokeness but I say - on this thread - she is “clumsy, naive, foolish, maladroit” and much else
I can see why you might sack her. But then, she is the only minister with the guts to stand up to the left and say hard but true things. That’s why she still has the support of half the Tories - as we see in this poll
Sunak has alienated all those Tories - and for what? What does he gain? Does he honestly think millions of grateful people will flock back to the Tories now she’s gone and David Duke of Brexit* has got his feet up in Chevening?
I predict the polls will not shift significantly at all, but Tory infighting will get worse. So: a net negative. That’s bad politics
*that’s mine and I demand copyright
Given they were 99% certain to lose the next election I would suggest that, if they want to drag the party back towards the centre, it would be better (for them rather than the country) to get the infighting happening now and purge the ERG types rather than wait until after the election when they are in Opposition and the Right Wing are far more likely to win the leadership.
And much of what she says is not true. People don't generally choose to live on the streets. We should not ban protests just because we disagree with the opinions being expressed. It is not the fault of the ECHR if the UK Supreme Court says we are not allowed to send asylum seekers to Africa.
Braverman was the Bully XL of politics and it was long overdue for her to be defanged.
I had already said in the last thread this wouldn't change the polls. But that doesn't mean it was not worth doing in its own right.
She was right to spot the way homeless cities arise, and warn about it, her language was offensively wrong. AFAIK she did not explicitly call for protests to be banned?
Am I the only person that actually read her Times article about protests? This is what she actually says, she actually says the opposite of "ban them", at least in this article:
"The right to protest in public is a cornerstone of democracy. That is why peaceful marches are never banned and even controversial and disruptive ones are policed rather than blocked.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do the authorities step in. The way the law works is clear: if a chief constable believes that there is a serious risk of disorder which the police will struggle to contain, he or she can ask the home secretary to ban a march. Even then, a static protest can take place."
She goes on:
"Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law? I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.
Football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically-connected minority groups who are favoured by the left. It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they are likely to get than whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority. The government has a duty to take a broader view.
If the march goes ahead this weekend, the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder."
The whole point is a call for even-handed policing. And after what I saw on Saturday, I would say she has been vindicated, the police were far tougher on the 300 footie hoons than on the 30,000 dodgy types in the 300,000 Pro-Pal march; they were admirably calm, they were not even-handed
The ECHR is outdated junk and we should leave it if it prevents us policing our borders properly
Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law?"
This just isn't true. I have been at protests where street fash are clearly there to get boozed up and start a fight - whereas the vast majority of reports, even from those who dislike the pro-Palestinian marches, noted how much of a family vibe there was to the entire thing this Saturday.
The fact is there weren't that many dodgy types in the march - unless your definition of dodgy goes into the absurd (which as a right wing nut job, I'm sure yours does). That there was so much scrutiny of the march, and has been for months, and the number of "problematic" signs and such is so few is a testament to this. The only thing that allows people to paint with such a broad brush is via the absurd belief that "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" is a call for a genocide of Jewish Israelis.
It's a call to abolish the state of Israel on the basis that it is an illegitimate settler colony.
Do you also have a wholesome interpretation of the 'Kill the Boer' song?
It's been a big day for Home Office, which is saying goodbye to Suella Braverman for a second time, and hello to a new home secretary for the fourth time in 14 months
Sources I spoke to are pretty happy, with one calling Braverman a "incompetent moron"
Some ministers below cabinet rank who have said they are resigning: Jeremy Quin, paymaster general; Nick Gibb, schools minister; Neil O’Brien, a health minister; Rachel Maclean, housing minister.
Interesting that he's appointed Richard Holden as party chairman. MP for N W Durham, which includes Consett. About as red as red wall gets.
So the French speeding fine system has a clever QR code fandangle where the laptop-camera reads the QR code on the letter and fills in all the details.... and it doesn't work, at all
It's reassuring to know other advanced countries can be lame
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
Harold Wilson took a risk when he appointed Patrick Gordon Walker as Foreign Secretary in 1964, after he had lost his seat at the General Election. The PM assumed that his appointee would return to The Commons after a by-election at Leyton in January 1965. His Conservative opponent won by 205 votes.
Some ministers below cabinet rank who have said they are resigning: Jeremy Quin, paymaster general; Nick Gibb, schools minister; Neil O’Brien, a health minister; Rachel Maclean, housing minister.
Interesting that he's appointed Richard Holden as party chairman. MP for N W Durham, which includes Consett. About as red as red wall gets.
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
No. Should we be? Lords have held offices of state many, many times.
Quite a while since we had such a senior Cabinet minister from the Lords, though.
And there is the way that one of the aims of you-know-what was to Strengthen Democracy, it sits uncomfortably.
It's good that someone like Suella has been indirectly replaced by someone like Dave.
It's not good that there isn't really anyone like Dave on the Conservative benches in the Commons.
I have a pretty strong personal conviction that the unelected HoL needs to go; we need a democratically accountable second chamber.
And while it's not the main reason, the fact that the PM can randomly giving someone a peerage to shoehorn them into a senior cabinet post really shows what a travesty it is.
The last thing in the world we need is another elected chamber, full of self interested hacks, inevitably at war with the HoC, as they both have a democratic mandate. The USA as currently working is a great example of what happens when there are too many elected foci of power.
The HoL needs reform, so that the great majority of its members are there as people with the ability to scrutinise, debate, revise, advise, warn, issue dull reports and so on, but with the final decision always being with a single elected house. 200 Lord Hennessys, Winstons and Clarkes would do us fine
The convention that a minister in government has to be in one of the houses is just that, a convention.
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
Not really.
However, I am bothered by the fact that the PM can see fit to appoint someone who was up to his neck in the Greensill coronavirus finance scandal. The whole matter stinks and so it now stinks that someone with such a record has been brought back into the heart of this every more sleazy government.
So the French speeding fine system has a clever QR code fandangle where the laptop-camera reads the QR code on the letter and fills in all the details.... and it doesn't work, at all
It's reassuring to know other advanced countries can be lame
They would probably claim its the fault of your backward Anglo-Saxon laptop and that no such problems could ever exist with the glorious Francophone devices.
Remove the really weird rule, presumably dating from the 11th century or somesuch, that no Lord is allowed to speak on the floor of the Commons.
Allow Lords to speak and take questions from the Commons. And while you’re at it you could allow members of the Commons to take questions in the Lords.
No real reason I can see why that isn’t allowed, other than archaic tradition.
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Cameron isn't an elected MP in the House of Commons?
Me? No. Honestly. The person has to be held accountable to the House, but this can be done via Select Committee and appointing a MP to shadow them. The PM forms a Government for the Monarch and it's only party politics that makes them appoint a MP. As long as the person can be made a Privy Councillor and can pass the various security hurdles, it's not a problem
Compare and contrast to the Office of the Prime Minister. They can appoint any damn fool they like, regardless of merit or security or sanity
Comments
Some good ideas here for the next world cup.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/67366337
Do you think I just sit here posting and nothing else?
Right now I am
1. On the phone to HMRC (on hold)
2. Arranging a Xmas party
3. Packing for tomorrow
4. Trying to think of a new name for my latest flint
5. Paying a ridiculously annoying speeding fine from my recent trip to Lozere in Languedoc (58kph in a 50kph zone. Vraiment?)
AND
6. composing stupid clerihews on PB
It goes to show the degree of contempt in which the Conservatives [sic] hold constitutional convention that it doesn't really pass a great deal of comment.
This just isn't true. I have been at protests where street fash are clearly there to get boozed up and start a fight - whereas the vast majority of reports, even from those who dislike the pro-Palestinian marches, noted how much of a family vibe there was to the entire thing this Saturday.
The fact is there weren't that many dodgy types in the march - unless your definition of dodgy goes into the absurd (which as a right wing nut job, I'm sure yours does). That there was so much scrutiny of the march, and has been for months, and the number of "problematic" signs and such is so few is a testament to this. The only thing that allows people to paint with such a broad brush is via the absurd belief that "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" is a call for a genocide of Jewish Israelis.
Been off the site last few days. Have I missed anything interesting?
You must have a very odd family...
And there is the way that one of the aims of you-know-what was to Strengthen Democracy, it sits uncomfortably.
It's good that someone like Suella has been indirectly replaced by someone like Dave.
It's not good that there isn't really anyone like Dave on the Conservative benches in the Commons.
It's understandable why Rishi went for a left field appointment to solve a big problem but I don't think the idea will have won him any friends in Parliament.
The description given of 'he went to Dougie's sex parties but not to participate, just to observe and take notes' seems a little Williamson-esque.
Rishi's new Foreign Secretary man
Call me Lord Dave in his gypsy caravan
Will visit Scotland of course
Behind a former police horse
As the link below shows, in 2022 nearly 30% of players in Major League Baseball (MLB) hailed from outside the USA.
Note that West Indies, Caribbean and Mexico collective accounted for 26% of MLB players.
Japan accounted for just half of 1% (7 players) despite having a VERY robust baseball culture, including its own Nippon Professional Baseball league, which has contributed over 60 players to MLB.
Personally think there's excellent case, for making top Japanese teams eligible for the World Series, but ways and means are unclear to say the least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Major_League_Baseball_players_by_country_of_birth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Professional_Baseball
I do not want to rejoin but I do want a closer and friendlier relationship with the EU
The extent to which government in the UK is dominated by elected representatives is distinctive and slightly unusual. We tend to assume this is natural but there is no special reason why this is so.
Elected parliaments and government are two completely different functions. I like the way we generally do things, that close link between MPs and government, but the House of Commons is so full of people with limited ability that it is clearly getting harder to find a government from them. That bit is worrying.
Most people of very high ability don't plan to spend their career pretending to support a party whose members are mostly dullards, and lying to get elected.
Not IN the USA admittedly, but I went to two of the NFL's International Series games at Wembley before the pandemic and I'm a 49ers fan and have Gamepass which gives me the whole shebang.
And while it's not the main reason, the fact that the PM can randomly giving someone a peerage to shoehorn them into a senior cabinet post really shows what a travesty it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVclYa49KPI
NEW: It's not over yet..... Esther McVey enters No10....
But this is not the right way to do it.
Rishi Sunak sacked Suella Braverman by phone this morning.
And Downing Street say there won’t be any exchange of letters between the two - almost unheard of.
NEW THREAD
Do you also have a wholesome interpretation of the 'Kill the Boer' song?
It's been a big day for Home Office, which is saying goodbye to Suella Braverman for a second time, and hello to a new home secretary for the fourth time in 14 months
Sources I spoke to are pretty happy, with one calling Braverman a "incompetent moron"
It's reassuring to know other advanced countries can be lame
The HoL needs reform, so that the great majority of its members are there as people with the ability to scrutinise, debate, revise, advise, warn, issue dull reports and so on, but with the final decision always being with a single elected house. 200 Lord Hennessys, Winstons and Clarkes would do us fine
The convention that a minister in government has to be in one of the houses is just that, a convention.
However, I am bothered by the fact that the PM can see fit to appoint someone who was up to his neck in the Greensill coronavirus finance scandal. The whole matter stinks and so it now stinks that someone with such a record has been brought back into the heart of this every more sleazy government.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-cameron-showed-significant-lack-of-judgment-on-greensill-inquiry-finds
Remove the really weird rule, presumably dating from the 11th century or somesuch, that no Lord is allowed to speak on the floor of the Commons.
Allow Lords to speak and take questions from the Commons. And while you’re at it you could allow members of the Commons to take questions in the Lords.
No real reason I can see why that isn’t allowed, other than archaic tradition.
Compare and contrast to the Office of the Prime Minister. They can appoint any damn fool they like, regardless of merit or security or sanity