Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Betting on Lee Anderson to defect – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,735
edited March 12 in General
imageBetting on Lee Anderson to defect – politicalbetting.com

The news will fuel speculation that Lee Anderson is about to join Reform UK. Full story on @GBNEWS website.https://t.co/zhKR949WD7

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,788
    edited February 28
    Ugh, just had an image of Lee Anderson and Dame Andrea Jenkyns in the shower together.

    Thought I'd share so we can set up a therapy group, sharing is caring after all.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,255
    "Britain Elects
    @BritainElects

    📊 Labour lead at 18pts
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 44% (+2)
    CON: 26% (-2)
    LDEM: 10% (-)
    REF: 10% (+2)
    GRN: 4% (-)

    via @Savanta_UK, 23 - 25 Feb"
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,286
    edited February 28

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,126
    Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,607

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,976
    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,603

    Ugh, just had an image of Lee Anderson and Dame Andrea Jenkyns in the shower together.

    Thought I'd share so we can set up a therapy group, sharing is caring after all.

    I think, in this case, sharing is scaring. Or maybe scarring :confounded:
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,783
    Ghedebrav said:

    Surely 30p is the right bet?

    Might be unwise to bet more than that either way, given that you could be betting against Anderson himself.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,436
    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    Corbynite twitter is pretty gung ho on him..
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,404
    Selebian said:

    Ugh, just had an image of Lee Anderson and Dame Andrea Jenkyns in the shower together.

    Thought I'd share so we can set up a therapy group, sharing is caring after all.

    I think, in this case, sharing is scaring. Or maybe scarring :confounded:
    Or sceaming
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,976

    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    Corbynite twitter is pretty gung ho on him..
    I was surprised to see he was odds on favourite.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,976
    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
    I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,465
    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    Ali is still the Labour candidate on the ballot.

    Galloway may well still win but I don't see value at the current odds.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,054
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
    I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.
    He does get "Labour" on the ballot paper.

    I've backed Gorgeous too though - so I'd advise punters to avoid.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,465

    Ghedebrav said:

    Surely 30p is the right bet?

    Might be unwise to bet more than that either way, given that you could be betting against Anderson himself.
    That seems to have been his career strategy in 2024.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,465
    On topic, yes, I think he will. I don't see either side backing down now - they've invested too much in their current positions, and Anderson is likely to lose under the Tory flag anyway; he may as well lose under Reform and stick to his prejudices. Plus, it earns him a footnote to history and who knows how things will pan out post-GE?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
    I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.
    The ballot paper says Azhar Ali - Labour.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,342
    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    I don't know, I think I'd tend to pay more attention to a wealthy person who preaches redistribution, than to a wealthy person who preaches that inequality is good for you.

    And if a non-wealthy person preaches redistribution then it is the "politics of envy".
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,040
    Dura_Ace said:

    Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.

    Suspect he will lose his seat though, esp if it is a bloodbath.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,976

    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    Bad news for everybody who has bet on Galloway.
    14 years in the wilderness after my Obama bloomer this might be a beautiful new beginning
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,975

    Ugh, just had an image of Lee Anderson and Dame Andrea Jenkyns in the shower together.

    Thought I'd share so we can set up a therapy group, sharing is caring after all.

    {puts on black cap}

    For ye Fowle and Un-natural Crimes, ye are guilte…

    Ye shall be taken from this Place to A Place of Incarceration… Con Home.. Piers Corbyn, Piers Morgan… Pineapple Pizza….

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,869
    He's not going anywhere.

    He might be using Reform talks as a bit of leverage.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,815
    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334
    edited February 28
    I expect him to go and raise the average IQ of both the Tories and Reform.

    However he may justifiably feel he has more chance of holding Ashfield as a Reform candidate than a Tory, Ashfield had never elected a Tory MP at a general election until 2019 when he won it and even then only for Boris to get Brexit done
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,897
    Dura_Ace said:

    Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.

    I would come to the same conclusion from the other way. Most politicians defect because they can longer stand being part of their original party. As Reform and the Conservatives are ideologically the same party, why defect?
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,736
    edited February 28
    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
    Yep. I'm sitting here thinking nobody can win, which of course is impossible and on that basis it has to be the person with Labour against their name even if not Labour, by default.

    If they had had more notice and got their fingers out then LDs would have been in with a shout with nobody wanting anyone else, but they don't appear to have done so (on the basis that there has been zippo from the LDs on the by election).

    Is anyone campaigning there? Galloway I assume.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,465
    One reason he may not have jumped straight to Reform is the dynamics. Had Anderson resigned the Tory whip, moving straight across would have been relatively easy and framed as a matter of principle or disillusion with Sunak or similar. However, to do so after being kicked out of the parliamentary party smacks of sour grapes. If it's going to happen, he and they will want to make it look as if it's in response to a better even than a disciplinary. The Budget is one possibility but there are plenty of others.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,286
    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    My stepsister got married by post, as one can do in certain US states, then had the party at the South Pole, where the couple were working, in mid-winter, when it is impossible to go in or out.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,543

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,543

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Its not hypocritical to max out your money by having two homes and claiming to live in one or the other etc. Politicians have long done the same (see the expenses scandal, Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls etc).
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,543
    FF43 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.

    I would come to the same conclusion from the other way. Most politicians defect because they can longer stand being part of their original party. As Reform and the Conservatives are ideologically the same party, why defect?
    They are not though, are they? The Tories are traditonally much more centre right than what Reform represents, its just that at the moment a lot of the more moderate voices have left or were forced out over Brexit.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,191

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Presumably it's HMG denying the councils the use of the money for more houses that is the problem. But the Tories don't want to focus on that.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,255
    Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,244
    Andy_JS said:

    Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.

    Nanny state!
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,976

    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
    I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.
    The ballot paper says Azhar Ali - Labour.
    That's strange.Starmer said he wouldn't be standing as a Labour candidate......I
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,191

    FF43 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.

    I would come to the same conclusion from the other way. Most politicians defect because they can longer stand being part of their original party. As Reform and the Conservatives are ideologically the same party, why defect?
    They are not though, are they? The Tories are traditonally much more centre right than what Reform represents, its just that at the moment a lot of the more moderate voices have left or were forced out over Brexit.
    By their fruits shall ye know them, and all that, however.

    'Traditionally' also includes hanging and flogging, but also sound money, an effective defence, functioning courts, etc. etc. so it doesn't mean much with the current C&UP, and as for Reform I'm not familiar with them except they like the same sort of things.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,054
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

    I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
    I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.
    The ballot paper says Azhar Ali - Labour.
    That's strange.Starmer said he wouldn't be standing as a Labour candidate......I
    Ballot papers were printed before that happened.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,976

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    My stepsister got married by post, as one can do in certain US states, then had the party at the South Pole, where the couple were working, in mid-winter, when it is impossible to go in or out.
    I bet she got a frosty reception.
    It's cool man!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,054
    Andy_JS said:

    Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.

    They should probably be banned for everyone tbh.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,815

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    No, a registry office is not humanist.
  • Options

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    A wedding at a registry office, or in Scotland anywhere conducted by a registrar, is a civil wedding.
    Not the same as a humanist wedding.
    My son's wedding was a civil wedding, in a hotel.
    Scotland has the sensible rule that a wedding can take place anywhere, so long as the person conducting the wedding is authorised, whether a registrar, a humanist celebrant or a religious person.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,975

    Andy_JS said:

    Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.

    Nanny state!
    I propose we should ban banning things.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,607
    edited February 28

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,975
    Carnyx said:

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    My stepsister got married by post, as one can do in certain US states, then had the party at the South Pole, where the couple were working, in mid-winter, when it is impossible to go in or out.
    I bet she got a frosty reception.
    No problem getting the cake iced, though.
    Hope no-one broke the ice at the reception.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,607
    It's like Lab all of a sudden SUPPORTING TAX HAVENS FOR THE WEALTHY because they think it might be electorally advantageous and we found out that the Shadow Health Secretary was being paid through an arms length SPV trust in the Cayman Islands.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,034

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.

    More crazed Tory copycatting of MAGA Republicans, see current case before SCOTUS re: social media.

    CNN - Supreme Court questions Florida and Texas social media laws on First Amendment grounds
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,327
    "Christian Horner allegations: Red Bull team principal cleared of inappropriate behaviour"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68411597
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,815

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    I would have preferred a civil partnership to marriage, but they were not available to non-same-sex couples at the time.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,959
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    Absurd. Next week someone who advocated for more cycle paths drove a car shocker.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,959

    "Christian Horner allegations: Red Bull team principal cleared of inappropriate behaviour"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68411597

    There goes his chances of becoming a Tory Mp.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334
    edited February 28

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
  • Options
    NYT - unofficial results of 2024 Michigan presidential primary

    DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
    Joseph R. Biden Jr.
    618,426 81.1% = 109 delegates
    Uncommitted
    101,100 13.3%
    Marianne Williamson
    22,706 3.0%
    Dean Phillips
    20,465 2.7%
    Total votes reported
    762,697

    REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
    Donald J. Trump
    756,851 68.2% = 12 delegates
    Nikki Haley
    294,884 26.6% = 4 delegates
    Uncommitted
    33,404 3.0%
    Ron DeSantis
    13,368 1.2%
    Chris Christie
    4,762 0.4%0.4
    Vivek Ramaswamy
    3,705 0.3%0.3
    Ryan Binkley
    2,356 0.2%0.2
    Asa Hutchinson
    1,084 0.1%0.1
    Total votes reported
    1,110,414
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,607

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
    It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 828
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Presumably it's HMG denying the councils the use of the money for more houses that is the problem. But the Tories don't want to focus on that.
    I believe that that's no longer the case - restrictions on doing so were partially lifted in 2008 and fully lifted by Eric Pickles in (I think...) 2012.

    But 40 years of suppression destroyed so much productive capacity that the number of new starts is still way below where it needs to be.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    Isn't the only substantive legal difference between marriage and civil partnership different annulment rules? You can annul a marriage on non-consummation, but that's not a criterion for a civil partnership.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,481
    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,607

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    Absurd. Next week someone who advocated for more cycle paths drove a car shocker.
    Someone who is a passionate and activist Green Party member drives a Porsche 911 GT3 RS.

    Ahem.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,327
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
    It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
    Might this be one of those cases where national policy is influenced by a single person's actions? It'd be hard to now ban right-to-buy whilst Rayner remains high-up within the party.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
    It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
    If we presume your sinew analysis is accurate, then, OK, if he benefitted from RTB, then maybe you might have a case that he was a hypocrite.

    But we're talking about Angela Rayner, who doesn't oppose RTB and who is in a party whose policy is not to oppose RTB. Ergo, no hypocrisy.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,244
    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Yes I'd much rather hear from people who don't live there and never visit, I am sure they are far better informed.
  • Options

    "Christian Horner allegations: Red Bull team principal cleared of inappropriate behaviour"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68411597

    They should strip Verstappen of all his titles.

    No smoke without fire etc.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881
    I am happy to report that the food and booze in the new Air France Biz is top notch. Easily as good as BA, and better than Lufthansa, Swissair, KLM. And the new cabin design is better than all of them and competes with the best of rich Arabia/East Asia

    Air France is setting a new pace for European airlines

    Your Gazette Travel Correspondent in A Mild Tramadol and Margaux Haze
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,191
    edited February 28
    AlsoLei said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Presumably it's HMG denying the councils the use of the money for more houses that is the problem. But the Tories don't want to focus on that.
    I believe that that's no longer the case - restrictions on doing so were partially lifted in 2008 and fully lifted by Eric Pickles in (I think...) 2012.

    But 40 years of suppression destroyed so much productive capacity that the number of new starts is still way below where it needs to be.
    Thanks. Quite so. (Scotland is rather different, of course, in other ways.)

    It probably doesn't make much difference as, on the whole, the decent buys will have gone long before the rule change, and nobody in their right mind would buy the unsold leftovers. (Interesting question how many, if at all, of the leftovers are even worth buying in gentrifying areas as opposed to being scheduled for demolition.)
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,603

    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Yes I'd much rather hear from people who don't live there and never visit, I am sure they are far better informed.
    Presumably those who don't live there are unable to visit, what with it being a no go area :wink:

    So, we should indeed be thankful for these reports from people on the inside.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,342
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    This seems very weak. I mean good you can argue against right to buy, and be upset that Labour have dropped their opposition to it. But I don't really see the hypocrisy.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,815

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    Isn't the only substantive legal difference between marriage and civil partnership different annulment rules? You can annul a marriage on non-consummation, but that's not a criterion for a civil partnership.
    I remember some anti-equal marriage bod wibbling away about how lesbians can't consummate their marriage.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,815
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    Absurd. Next week someone who advocated for more cycle paths drove a car shocker.
    Someone who is a passionate and activist Green Party member drives a Porsche 911 GT3 RS.

    Ahem.
    Can't see why that would be a problem in a party that is just fixated on woke shite.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    Anderson should adopt the 30p lament as his theme song and play it as a warm up for his speeches.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,783

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
    It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
    Might this be one of those cases where national policy is influenced by a single person's actions? It'd be hard to now ban right-to-buy whilst Rayner remains high-up within the party.
    Is there anything left worth buying?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,327
    On fear of an area:

    Over the last few years I've run nearly every road and path within a large area surrounding my home (exc. motorways, obvs...) I've never once felt fearful from people I've seen or met. The runs are often at night or in the dark.

    But some female friends *are* fearful of being on the streets at night, even within my town which is not exactly crime central. And the worst thing is, I cannot say they're wrong to feel fear. As a six-foot-two man, my experience of an area might be very different to that of a woman. A somewhat elderly male acquaintances also has some fears.

    Fear may be rational or irrational; but the rationality is often very dependent on viewpoint and experience.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,607

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
    It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
    If we presume your sinew analysis is accurate, then, OK, if he benefitted from RTB, then maybe you might have a case that he was a hypocrite.

    But we're talking about Angela Rayner, who doesn't oppose RTB and who is in a party whose policy is not to oppose RTB. Ergo, no hypocrisy.
    This isn't complicated. Angela Rayner took advantage of a discount, the likes of which she has accepted is iniquitous, to buy her council house and then flipped it afterwards for a profit.

    Exactly the sort of behaviour that good Lab types should indulge in. I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason they support the policy is to shore up her flank as she knew she was otherwise exposed.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 828
    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

    But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,736

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    Agree, although ideally I wouldn't have started from here in the first place and made marriage nothing whatsoever to do with the State at all and be simply a personal thing (eg religious or personal commitment to one another in front of your God or family and friends). Sadly that is impossible because it is so deeply entangled in law (divorce, children, etc, etc) and taxation.

    I have the same view (in most cases) of identifying your sex when these days it is irrelevant for most purposes. I think it is bizarre that you are asked for your sex on a multitude of forms where it simply is irrelevant and that for instance letters get addressed to Mr/Mrs/Ms but not to the Fat, Old White Person at 3 Acacia Ave. Why is one more relevant than the other descriptions?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,327

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
    It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
    Might this be one of those cases where national policy is influenced by a single person's actions? It'd be hard to now ban right-to-buy whilst Rayner remains high-up within the party.
    Is there anything left worth buying?
    A good question. A quick Google produced this, which may be of relevance.

    "In 2023, around four million houses were occupied by households socially renting. The largest shares of social rented households in England during the period under observation were 2000 and 2001, when a total of almost 20 percent of all households were recorded as socially rented"

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/286509/england-number-of-social-rented-households/
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    AlsoLei said:

    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

    But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
    How does such a desirable place end up run by Lutfur Rahman?
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,153
    HYUFD said:

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
    "[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"

    You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,191
    edited February 28
    AlsoLei said:

    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

    But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
    In the old days it was easy. You looked for the job ads and checked out which dairies had requirements for mid-upper turret gunners. Not so easy now, for the obvious reason, no milk floats. Maybe the reason for the confusion we see on PB today.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
    "[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"

    You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
    I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,191
    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
    "[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"

    You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
    I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
    But they have. They're called civil marriages.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
    "[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"

    You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
    I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
    But they have. They're called civil marriages.
    So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,191
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

    It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

    And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

    I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
    In what way has she been hypocritical?
    I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

    Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
    She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
    I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

    I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
    In what sense has she been hypocritical?

    I ask again – simple question.
    I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

    If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

    The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

    I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
    Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

    N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

    Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

    (Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
    Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
    No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

    I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

    Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

    If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
    I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

    Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
    Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

    Where and when has she been hypocritical?
    Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

    https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

    But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

    And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

    Where's a mural painter when you need one.
    You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
    It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
    If we presume your sinew analysis is accurate, then, OK, if he benefitted from RTB, then maybe you might have a case that he was a hypocrite.

    But we're talking about Angela Rayner, who doesn't oppose RTB and who is in a party whose policy is not to oppose RTB. Ergo, no hypocrisy.
    This isn't complicated. Angela Rayner took advantage of a discount, the likes of which she has accepted is iniquitous, to buy her council house and then flipped it afterwards for a profit.

    Exactly the sort of behaviour that good Lab types should indulge in. I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason they support the policy is to shore up her flank as she knew she was otherwise exposed.
    Profit? Doesn't meet the smell test without knowing a lot more. Inflation accounts for a good chunk. The question is how much was spent on doing it up = improving the nation's housing stock. The sums in question are such that there might be no actual profit in real terms, maybe even a loss.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881

    Anderson should adopt the 30p lament as his theme song and play it as a warm up for his speeches.

    Ah, thanks

    Because, when is it ever a bad time to hear @RochdalePioneers’s 30p Lee Anderson Lament?

    Answer: never

    So here it is again

    https://app.suno.ai/song/91270dcb-ef95-45f7-b6d2-acc5c3bb8a12
  • Options

    Andy_JS said:

    Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.

    More crazed Tory copycatting of MAGA Republicans, see current case before SCOTUS re: social media.

    CNN - Supreme Court questions Florida and Texas social media laws on First Amendment grounds
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html
    Actually Brianna Ghey's Mother is campaigning for it

    Indeed my son who is in education and has 3 children supports the concept
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,191
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
    "[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"

    You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
    I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
    But they have. They're called civil marriages.
    So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
    They do. https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/births-deaths-marriages/marriage-and-civil-partnerships
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,959

    On fear of an area:

    Over the last few years I've run nearly every road and path within a large area surrounding my home (exc. motorways, obvs...) I've never once felt fearful from people I've seen or met. The runs are often at night or in the dark.

    But some female friends *are* fearful of being on the streets at night, even within my town which is not exactly crime central. And the worst thing is, I cannot say they're wrong to feel fear. As a six-foot-two man, my experience of an area might be very different to that of a woman. A somewhat elderly male acquaintances also has some fears.

    Fear may be rational or irrational; but the rationality is often very dependent on viewpoint and experience.

    Of course. But also significantly dependent on news and informations sources, nowadays driven by news companies hyping fear to sell adverts, politicos seeking to divide us and apps like nextdoor futher re-enforcing incorrect beliefs about levels of crime.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,975
    AlsoLei said:

    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

    But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
    Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 828

    AlsoLei said:

    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

    But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
    How does such a desirable place end up run by Lutfur Rahman?
    What's that got to do with anything?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,975
    Carnyx said:

    AlsoLei said:

    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

    But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
    In the old days it was easy. You looked for the job ads and checked out which dairies had requirements for mid-upper turret gunners. Not so easy now, for the obvious reason, no milk floats. Maybe the reason for the confusion we see on PB today.
    That's nonsense.

    You looked to see if the rear turret on the milk float was a Rose turret or the Frazer Nash crap.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881
    Also, several of you tragic fucks DOWNVOTED Rochdale’s 30p Lament, whereas @Rochdale himself took it well

    Come on, who was it? @TheScreamingEagles? @bondegazou? @OnlyLivingBoy?

  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089

    AlsoLei said:

    Taz said:

    The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

    Seriously, f**** off

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

    Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

    But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
    Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
    I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,153
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

    My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

    Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

    Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
    My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
    For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
    "[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"

    You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
    I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
    But they have. They're called civil marriages.
    So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
    So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.

    Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
This discussion has been closed.