Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Rishi Sunak is the new Boris Johnson and that’s not a good thing – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited March 25 in General
Rishi Sunak is the new Boris Johnson and that’s not a good thing – politicalbetting.com

EXC via ??@alexwickham? & me In recent days, Cabinet ministers have held private discussions exploring the possibility the Conservatives might be forced to replace Rishi Sunak before a UK election due later this year https://t.co/WYRI2ETflq

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    Presumably if Sunak thinks there’s a serious chance of being ousted he will simply go to the palace for a General Election.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited March 14

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I quite liked Dave, although he screwed over students and eventually the rest of the country. But he’s not the answer and it’s a sign of the desperation of a decent tory like you that you’re even touting him as a serious possibility.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I was planning on doing the afternoon thread on that, unless you want to do a piece on it?
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,449

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    When she calls you "one of her playschool babies" you *think* you should cringe but actually you melt. She'd sort us all out.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    The way Tories spent the early part of the week defending Frank Hester before Sunak decided actually Hester’s comments were racist have annoyed plenty of Tories and this is worrying for Sunak...

    They are, of course, still defending him in asserting that his "remorse is genuine and should be accepted", so they don't have to return his cash.

    That rather complicates any annoyance they might feel over the matter.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    Pity Nadine didn't get her peerage so she could return.

    Or perhaps you hanker for a quick enoblement of Boris Johnson...
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    I complained to my GP Practice and TPP itself yesterday, not that this will do any good.

    Cronyism and corruption at the heart of Government.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
    John Major to the rescue!
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Foxy said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    Pity Nadine didn't get her peerage so she could return.

    Or perhaps you hanker for a quick enoblement of Boris Johnson...
    I have been told by a very reliable source that Boris Johnson doesn't want it.

    1) He knows the Tories will get gubbed at the election if he is leader and he wants his record intact.

    2) He doesn't want to do five years as LOTO.

    3) He likes his earnings since leaving office.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,772
    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    That was quite extraordinary.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    Noooooooooooooooo.

    We might end up with Dan fucking Hannan
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,487
    Just in the top 10.

    Unlike Sunk.

    But I'm going out for an hour this morning trying the new E-folding bike, so life has some positives.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    That was quite extraordinary.
    It was, for a Speaker who quite recently upended precedent, him hiding under the precedence of the order paper was pathetic.

    That said, Labour missed a trick, back in 2009 when the story broke about Gordon Brown's team trying to smear Tories including Dave and Nadine Dorries, it was agreed by Dave and the party, no Tory MP would stand to ask questions at PMQs until Nadine Dorries was called worked.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I was planning on doing the afternoon thread on that, unless you want to do a piece on it?
    Tempting .....

    Let me see what I can pull together.

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited March 14

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
    I’ve tended to assume until the last day or so that you’re merely being playful about this, but I’m realising you are serious.

    Cameron would exacerbate the crushing of the tories. Any attempt to dissociate from the last 14 years will be lost and the whole ghastly car crash since Brexit will be laid bare before the British people. This is even without the stench of his Greenshill corruption getting full light of day.

    Cameron = Conservative catastrophe

    There’s actually only one person who could shore up the building and save it from total collapse. And he’s no longer in Parliament.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677
    Heathener said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
    I’ve tended to assume until the last day or so that you’re merely being playful about this, but I’m realising you are serious.

    Cameron would exacerbate the crushing of the tories. Any attempt to dissociate from the last 14 years will be lost and the whole ghastly car crash since Brexit will be laid bare before the British people. This is even without the stench of his Greenshill corruption getting full light of day.

    Cameron = Conservative catastrophe

    There’s actually only one person who could shore up the building and save it from total collapse. And he’s no longer in Parliament.
    Also John Major is 80 and deserves a nice retirement.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072

    Heathener said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
    I’ve tended to assume until the last day or so that you’re merely being playful about this, but I’m realising you are serious.

    Cameron would exacerbate the crushing of the tories. Any attempt to dissociate from the last 14 years will be lost and the whole ghastly car crash since Brexit will be laid bare before the British people. This is even without the stench of his Greenshill corruption getting full light of day.

    Cameron = Conservative catastrophe

    There’s actually only one person who could shore up the building and save it from total collapse. And he’s no longer in Parliament.
    Also John Major is 80 and deserves a nice retirement.
    Yep but I didn’t mean him … as you may guess ;)
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @NatashaC

    Gove gives the example of Shakeel Begg, which was settled in court, who will no longer get access to government cash

    He denies that proroguing parliament would be undermining democracy and thus fall under that definition

    @LBC
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited March 14
    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    My former lifelong-tory-voting friend in Surrey would vote Conservative if Boris was leader.

    It’s bonkers but true: she would.

    It’s the Boris effect. Particularly with certain ladies. Not me, I hasten to add. I saw through that sleazy schmuck a long time ago.

    Boris would just about pull in some red wall seats and probably get the tories into the 30’s percentage.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited March 14

    Foxy said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    Pity Nadine didn't get her peerage so she could return.

    Or perhaps you hanker for a quick enoblement of Boris Johnson...
    I have been told by a very reliable source that Boris Johnson doesn't want it.

    1) He knows the Tories will get gubbed at the election if he is leader and he wants his record intact.

    2) He doesn't want to do five years as LOTO.

    3) He likes his earnings since leaving office.
    LOL @ Intact!!
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,617
    Heathener said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
    I’ve tended to assume until the last day or so that you’re merely being playful about this, but I’m realising you are serious.

    Cameron would exacerbate the crushing of the tories. Any attempt to dissociate from the last 14 years will be lost and the whole ghastly car crash since Brexit will be laid bare before the British people. This is even without the stench of his Greenshill corruption getting full light of day.

    Cameron = Conservative catastrophe

    There’s actually only one person who could shore up the building and save it from total collapse. And he’s no longer in Parliament.
    Rory Stewart?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    That was quite extraordinary.
    Hoyle is a Speaker of very poor judgment indeed, but it is as much our parliamentary system which is problematic.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,487

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    That was quite extraordinary.
    It was, for a Speaker who quite recently upended precedent, him hiding under the precedence of the order paper was pathetic.

    That said, Labour missed a trick, back in 2009 when the story broke about Gordon Brown's team trying to smear Tories including Dave and Nadine Dorries, it was agreed by Dave and the party, no Tory MP would stand to ask questions at PMQs until Nadine Dorries was called worked.
    I have not heard of the Dorries incident. Do you have a link?

    This is to do with the Damian McBride smears / attempted manipulations, presumably, and perhaps the incident where Dorries was paid compensation?
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072

    Heathener said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
    I’ve tended to assume until the last day or so that you’re merely being playful about this, but I’m realising you are serious.

    Cameron would exacerbate the crushing of the tories. Any attempt to dissociate from the last 14 years will be lost and the whole ghastly car crash since Brexit will be laid bare before the British people. This is even without the stench of his Greenshill corruption getting full light of day.

    Cameron = Conservative catastrophe

    There’s actually only one person who could shore up the building and save it from total collapse. And he’s no longer in Parliament.
    Rory Stewart?
    Hi OKC. I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

    Very sadly for the Party.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I was planning on doing the afternoon thread on that, unless you want to do a piece on it?
    Surely we need a thread on the Russian election this week, its such a nail biter.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68543919
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,131
    mwadams said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    When she calls you "one of her playschool babies" you *think* you should cringe but actually you melt. She'd sort us all out.
    As long as she doesn't make Hamble home secretary. There's a bit of an edge to that one.

    On the upside, it would be nice to have a government where the only cant is called Brian (RIP).
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    MattW said:

    Just in the top 10.

    Unlike Sunk.

    But I'm going out for an hour this morning trying the new E-folding bike, so life has some positives.

    A first impressions review would be of interest.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    I have long said that the Coalition will be seen by history as a rare example of good government.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,171
    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    They just don’t get that it’s the Conservative Party that’s the problem, not the leader.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,617
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
    I’ve tended to assume until the last day or so that you’re merely being playful about this, but I’m realising you are serious.

    Cameron would exacerbate the crushing of the tories. Any attempt to dissociate from the last 14 years will be lost and the whole ghastly car crash since Brexit will be laid bare before the British people. This is even without the stench of his Greenshill corruption getting full light of day.

    Cameron = Conservative catastrophe

    There’s actually only one person who could shore up the building and save it from total collapse. And he’s no longer in Parliament.
    Rory Stewart?
    Hi OKC. I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

    Very sadly for the Party.
    So do I; just been listening to his podcast, and thinking we could do with more thoughtful people!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    That was quite extraordinary.
    It was, for a Speaker who quite recently upended precedent, him hiding under the precedence of the order paper was pathetic...
    Note that when he did so, it was only in favour of one of the two major parties, though.

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,617
    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    You mean a garden of roses?
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    That was quite extraordinary.
    Hoyle is a Speaker of very poor judgment indeed, but it is as much our parliamentary system which is problematic.
    Careful, sounds like extremism under the new rules to say such a thing.
    Any other train users noticed the extremely pernicious nature of announcements, especially on SWR? Two in mind.

    1. After every station: ‘uniformed and non-uniformed revenue protection officers patrol this train and if you are found to be without a valid ticket you may face a £100 fine and prosecution.’ EVERY SINGLE BLOODY STATION.

    2. ‘Any violent or abusive behaviour towards our staff will be reported to British Transport Police.’

    Well, fine, if you do cross a line but this comes across as their own self-protection to avoid ANY kind of criticism

    SWR is shit. The trains are getting run down. The loos are appalling. There are NO power outlets anywhere in standard class. And ever since covid they have withdrawn all catering services: so for instance you can go 3.5 hours down to the south-west with not a drop to drink.

    And all the while their fares are eye-wateringly expensive.

    Rant over.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    Many of Britain's present problems were created, or deteriorated unchecked, during the Coalition years. If it feels like bliss and utopia compared to now that would only be because of the effect of the passage of time in a situation where there is a steady deterioration.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,893
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    I have long said that the Coalition will be seen by history as a rare example of good government.
    If only the LibDems had fought the 2015 election on their record in government instead of pretending they'd been in opposition.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited March 14

    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    Many of Britain's present problems were created, or deteriorated unchecked, during the Coalition years. If it feels like bliss and utopia compared to now that would only be because of the effect of the passage of time in a situation where there is a steady deterioration.
    I suspect there’s a lot of truth in your words. That’s probably why I chose the word ‘seem’.

    I suppose with hindsight it was the afterglow of the best of the Blair years. Cameron consciously and avowedly aped Tony Blair, and had the legacy of the wonderful 2012 London Olympics which was the final swan-song for Cool Britannia.

    It’s been all downhill since.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    They just don’t get that it’s the Conservative Party that’s the problem, not the leader.
    “Boris still has that stardust” she said. If only we had a Conservative government we could turn things round. She actually said that.

    She also commented that when she goes door knocking about a third are Labour, a third Tory and the rest undecided former Tory voters. Well in 2019 Labour got 35% of the vote so she’s either very selectively knocking or Morley & Outwood is a unique constituency where Labour are going backwards,
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    So what is your reasoning for why she should have been called?
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    edited March 14
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    I wonder if he was overcompensating for the Gaza vote debacle and scared of being accused by the government of overturning convention.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others

    This part of Gove's bill could be fun. Finally, a right to roam in England?

    Some other people on my timelines have suggested this is a way to attack school streets, LTNs etc
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546
    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    I wonder if he was overcompensating for the Gaza vote debacle and scared of being accused by the government of overturning convention.
    Possibly, and it probably did not help that she is effectively a party of 1 at the moment being suspended by Labour, but the point surely was that an MP had been personally slurred, albeit quite a long time ago. If the Speaker is not there for an MP in that situation then he is not worthy of the position and fundamentally does not understand his
    role.

  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    Eabhal said:

    negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others

    This part of Gove's bill could be fun. Finally, a right to roam in England?

    Some other people on my timelines have suggested this is a way to attack school streets, LTNs etc

    The Scottish Government could also use it to demand Indyref2
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,033

    Heathener said:

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    She might be my second choice, we need a Lord with experience of being PM, this is no time for a novice.
    I’ve tended to assume until the last day or so that you’re merely being playful about this, but I’m realising you are serious.

    Cameron would exacerbate the crushing of the tories. Any attempt to dissociate from the last 14 years will be lost and the whole ghastly car crash since Brexit will be laid bare before the British people. This is even without the stench of his Greenshill corruption getting full light of day.

    Cameron = Conservative catastrophe

    There’s actually only one person who could shore up the building and save it from total collapse. And he’s no longer in Parliament.
    Also John Major is 80 and deserves a nice retirement.
    I was about to say that John Major is in Parliament, in the House of Lords. Then I looked it up and saw that he isn't a lord. That really surprised me. I presume it is because he doesn't want to be in the upper house?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    I wonder if he was overcompensating for the Gaza vote debacle and scared of being accused by the government of overturning convention.
    Possibly, and it probably did not help that she is effectively a party of 1 at the moment being suspended by Labour, but the point surely was that an MP had been personally slurred, albeit quite a long time ago. If the Speaker is not there for an MP in that situation then he is not worthy of the position and fundamentally does not understand his
    role.

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    I wonder if he was overcompensating for the Gaza vote debacle and scared of being accused by the government of overturning convention.
    Possibly, and it probably did not help that she is effectively a party of 1 at the moment being suspended by Labour, but the point surely was that an MP had been personally slurred, albeit quite a long time ago. If the Speaker is not there for an MP in that situation then he is not worthy of the position and fundamentally does not understand his
    role.

    Especially as his justification for removing a motion debate from the SNP was the safety of MPs! But now it's not so important, is it?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    So what is your reasoning for why she should have been called?
    I was talking about why she wasn't called.
    Which is because since last year, she's sat as an independent MP.

    I agree entirely with your reasons for why she should have been.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,290
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677

    Off topic, today is the 10th anniversary of the death of Tony Benn. It just popped up as a memory on my FB page and this is what I wrote at the time:

    "Though I may have disagreed with many of his political positions, I have absolutely no doubt they were derived from a deeply held belief in the goodness of people and a desire to help make their lives better. A classic case of agreeing on the aims but disagreeing on the methods. He was one of the last remaining true conviction politicians and someone who, in the end, I admired immensely."

    Today I have to ask the same question as I did a decade ago. In comparison to such people of conviction and ability, how did we end up with such minnows running our world today?

    Outsourcing.

    A lot of the things politicians used to do- coming up with policies and persuading others of their rightness- are done by other people now. Think tanks, ad agencies, those types.

    So the politicians don't get good at them, because they have people to do those sorts of things. Don't know what we do about this.

    (And sorry folks, but there's an AI issue here as well. If we use machines to do the routine 99% and reserve the difficult 1% for humans to do, how will humans get good enough at the problems to deal with the difficult cases?)

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    It was.
    I'm not defending it it for a moment.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708
    Eabhal said:

    negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others

    This part of Gove's bill could be fun. Finally, a right to roam in England?

    Some other people on my timelines have suggested this is a way to attack school streets, LTNs etc

    No parents allowed to park near schools? Huge improvement, given the frequent misbehaviour, use of other people's driveways (not just parking across them) without permission, etc. etc.

    No adulteration of food. No pollution of water and air ...

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    I wonder if he was overcompensating for the Gaza vote debacle and scared of being accused by the government of overturning convention.
    Possibly, and it probably did not help that she is effectively a party of 1 at the moment being suspended by Labour, but the point surely was that an MP had been personally slurred, albeit quite a long time ago. If the Speaker is not there for an MP in that situation then he is not worthy of the position and fundamentally does not understand his
    role.

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    I wonder if he was overcompensating for the Gaza vote debacle and scared of being accused by the government of overturning convention.
    Possibly, and it probably did not help that she is effectively a party of 1 at the moment being suspended by Labour, but the point surely was that an MP had been personally slurred, albeit quite a long time ago. If the Speaker is not there for an MP in that situation then he is not worthy of the position and fundamentally does not understand his
    role.

    Especially as his justification for removing a motion debate from the SNP was the safety of MPs! But now it's not so important, is it?
    Exactly so.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    I would just 'like' to say I agree with you
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    I wonder if he was overcompensating for the Gaza vote debacle and scared of being accused by the government of overturning convention.
    Possibly, and it probably did not help that she is effectively a party of 1 at the moment being suspended by Labour, but the point surely was that an MP had been personally slurred, albeit quite a long time ago. If the Speaker is not there for an MP in that situation then he is not worthy of the position and fundamentally does not understand his
    role.

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.
    I wonder if he was overcompensating for the Gaza vote debacle and scared of being accused by the government of overturning convention.
    Possibly, and it probably did not help that she is effectively a party of 1 at the moment being suspended by Labour, but the point surely was that an MP had been personally slurred, albeit quite a long time ago. If the Speaker is not there for an MP in that situation then he is not worthy of the position and fundamentally does not understand his
    role.

    Especially as his justification for removing a motion debate from the SNP was the safety of MPs! But now it's not so important, is it?
    Exactly so.
    It is astonishing, absolutely astonishing.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677
    TimS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    They just don’t get that it’s the Conservative Party that’s the problem, not the leader.
    “Boris still has that stardust” she said. If only we had a Conservative government we could turn things round. She actually said that.

    She also commented that when she goes door knocking about a third are Labour, a third Tory and the rest undecided former Tory voters. Well in 2019 Labour got 35% of the vote so she’s either very selectively knocking or Morley & Outwood is a unique constituency where Labour are going backwards,
    Assuming the party has decent canvas data, she shouldn't be knocking on the doors of known opponents. In that context, 1/3 No, 1/3 Doubtful is plausible but should be terrifying.

    Duff sample = Duff data.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,290
    TimS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    They just don’t get that it’s the Conservative Party that’s the problem, not the leader.
    “Boris still has that stardust” she said. If only we had a Conservative government we could turn things round. She actually said that.

    She also commented that when she goes door knocking about a third are Labour, a third Tory and the rest undecided former Tory voters. Well in 2019 Labour got 35% of the vote so she’s either very selectively knocking or Morley & Outwood is a unique constituency where Labour are going backwards,

    I get where people like @isam are coming from with Johnson. He will inspire more 2019 Tories to vote Tory. He is actively liked by a section of that vote in a way that no other Tory is. No-one is going to positively vote for Sunak. However, there is another side to the equation: Johnson is toxic in a way that Sunak is not. Those who dislike him really dislike him = and there are an awful lot of these people around. Johnson as leader would galvanise the anti-Tory vote and maximise anti-Tory tactical voting. The overall result? More Tory votes nationally, but perhaps very few - if any - extra Tory seats.

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    38m
    Twice as many people know Lee Anderson compared to Richard Tice. So name recognition alone will give Reform a boost. Not as much as if Nigel Farage was properly coming out to play. But a boost non-the-less.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,372
    edited March 14

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    It seems Hoyle had a fixed list of MPs to call determined by protocol. He didn't have the flexibility of mind either to substitute Abbott for one of them or extend the session slightly to accommodate her. I don't think he was being sexist.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,247

    Off topic, today is the 10th anniversary of the death of Tony Benn. It just popped up as a memory on my FB page and this is what I wrote at the time:

    "Though I may have disagreed with many of his political positions, I have absolutely no doubt they were derived from a deeply held belief in the goodness of people and a desire to help make their lives better. A classic case of agreeing on the aims but disagreeing on the methods. He was one of the last remaining true conviction politicians and someone who, in the end, I admired immensely."

    Today I have to ask the same question as I did a decade ago. In comparison to such people of conviction and ability, how did we end up with such minnows running our world today?

    Outsourcing.

    A lot of the things politicians used to do- coming up with policies and persuading others of their rightness- are done by other people now. Think tanks, ad agencies, those types.

    So the politicians don't get good at them, because they have people to do those sorts of things. Don't know what we do about this.

    (And sorry folks, but there's an AI issue here as well. If we use machines to do the routine 99% and reserve the difficult 1% for humans to do, how will humans get good enough at the problems to deal with the difficult cases?)

    Can't remember where I read/heard this idea - but it was talking to teachers about 'AI'. The general view seemed to be they were going to carry on teaching 'the basics' even if 'AI can do it all'. In the same way they still teach arithmetic etc despite calculators being able to do it. Just the basic skills people need in order to even understand which buttons they want on the machine that then goes brrrrr.

    Whether businesses, governments, etc put the same effort into keeping their people skilled? The evidence isn't pointing to a great result...
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,247
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    It seems Hoyle had a fixed list of MPs to call determined by protocol. He didn't have the flexibility of mind either to substitute Abbott for one of them or extend the session slightly to accommodate her. I don't think he was being sexist.
    He had a fixed list - but still managed to call other people who weren't on it.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554

    TimS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    They just don’t get that it’s the Conservative Party that’s the problem, not the leader.
    “Boris still has that stardust” she said. If only we had a Conservative government we could turn things round. She actually said that.

    She also commented that when she goes door knocking about a third are Labour, a third Tory and the rest undecided former Tory voters. Well in 2019 Labour got 35% of the vote so she’s either very selectively knocking or Morley & Outwood is a unique constituency where Labour are going backwards,

    I get where people like @isam are coming from with Johnson. He will inspire more 2019 Tories to vote Tory. He is actively liked by a section of that vote in a way that no other Tory is. No-one is going to positively vote for Sunak. However, there is another side to the equation: Johnson is toxic in a way that Sunak is not. Those who dislike him really dislike him = and there are an awful lot of these people around. Johnson as leader would galvanise the anti-Tory vote and maximise anti-Tory tactical voting. The overall result? More Tory votes nationally, but perhaps very few - if any - extra Tory seats.

    The first time since 2005 that I voted Labour was in 2019 - because while Corbyn wasn’t my cup of tea, Bozo isn’t suitable for anything beyond entertaining roles (say token head of a republic).
  • Options
    UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 864

    Off topic, today is the 10th anniversary of the death of Tony Benn. It just popped up as a memory on my FB page and this is what I wrote at the time:

    "Though I may have disagreed with many of his political positions, I have absolutely no doubt they were derived from a deeply held belief in the goodness of people and a desire to help make their lives better. A classic case of agreeing on the aims but disagreeing on the methods. He was one of the last remaining true conviction politicians and someone who, in the end, I admired immensely."

    Today I have to ask the same question as I did a decade ago. In comparison to such people of conviction and ability, how did we end up with such minnows running our world today?

    Outsourcing.

    A lot of the things politicians used to do- coming up with policies and persuading others of their rightness- are done by other people now. Think tanks, ad agencies, those types.

    So the politicians don't get good at them, because they have people to do those sorts of things. Don't know what we do about this.

    (And sorry folks, but there's an AI issue here as well. If we use machines to do the routine 99% and reserve the difficult 1% for humans to do, how will humans get good enough at the problems to deal with the difficult cases?)

    In their recent budget my local council decided to cut a popular collaboration with a charity to provide a mentoring scheme in schools. Apparently the Councillors are furious at the Executives because they didn't realise what they had cut and feel misled by their execs.

    I was flabbergasted, not at the idea that the Councillors didn't understand their own budget (I'm not naive), but rather that they would feel that it's an acceptable excuse. If they felt that the budget was so vague that they didn't realise what they had signed off, then surely it's their job to demand that detail?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,331
    As of March 2024, there are 226 women MPs, out of a total of 650. That's about 34%. (1)

    Looking at yesterday's PMQs, leaving aside the LOTO's questions, questions were asked by eleven men, and eleven women (*). This includes the SNP and Lib Dem leaders though, so perhaps one or both of those should be removed (as they were called on a party basis, not at speaker's choice?). Most of the women were called nearer the end.

    Looking at the previous PMQs (3), there's a very different story: 13 questions from men (leaving aside Starmer), and only three women.

    Looking at the one before that (28/02/2024), it as 18 men, and 7 women.

    So it appears to be rather all over the places; some PMQs more women get called than is their proportion in parliament; at others, fewer. The women do seem to get called later in proceedings, though that might just be because the major party leaders are currently male.

    Methodology: randomly counted, not for academic use, etc, etc. Was unsure whether I should have included Starmer in the list or not...

    (1): https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/gender-balance-politics
    (2): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-13/debates/0F85365D-BD56-4647-B8B5-EC356A1BD132/Engagements
    (3): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-06/debates/68C06922-A4AE-43B8-AC5F-F73A6A5BC7E0/Engagements
    (4): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-02-28/debates/B0D02324-11C1-4617-B00D-72FDD676BD03/Engagements
    (*) If I've calculated that correctly from a quick reading...
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,022
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    It seems Hoyle had a fixed list of MPs to call determined by protocol. He didn't have the flexibility of mind either to substitute Abbott for one of them or extend the session slightly to accommodate her. I don't think he was being sexist.
    Unlike his previous bending of precedent which was obviously foreseeable to nark the SNP off, which MPs would have been up in arms about a session extension to accommodate Abbott ? Precisely zero.

    It's another poor judgement call from speaker Hoyle.

  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399
    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    The process is silly. They have to call Tory and opposition members in turn. There were opposition questions on the order paper he couldn't call because few Tories wanted to ask a question.

    As he was going to have to skip questions off the order paper anyway I think it would - in the circumstances - have made sense to call Abbott instead of another one. He would have been criticised for that as well as going against the long-standing convention. And we know how that went last time.

    The rule - as he said last time - is archaic and needs revising. If Tory MPs are cowards and don't want to ask the shitty whip question the speaker should just call more opposition MPs.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,478


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    38m
    Twice as many people know Lee Anderson compared to Richard Tice. So name recognition alone will give Reform a boost. Not as much as if Nigel Farage was properly coming out to play. But a boost non-the-less.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    The Hodge needs to tell us how many people 'know' Lee Anderson - is it 10, 100, 1,000,000, 20,000,000? - then we can make a judgement.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    TimS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    They just don’t get that it’s the Conservative Party that’s the problem, not the leader.
    “Boris still has that stardust” she said. If only we had a Conservative government we could turn things round. She actually said that.

    She also commented that when she goes door knocking about a third are Labour, a third Tory and the rest undecided former Tory voters. Well in 2019 Labour got 35% of the vote so she’s either very selectively knocking or Morley & Outwood is a unique constituency where Labour are going backwards,

    I get where people like @isam are coming from with Johnson. He will inspire more 2019 Tories to vote Tory. He is actively liked by a section of that vote in a way that no other Tory is. No-one is going to positively vote for Sunak. However, there is another side to the equation: Johnson is toxic in a way that Sunak is not. Those who dislike him really dislike him = and there are an awful lot of these people around. Johnson as leader would galvanise the anti-Tory vote and maximise anti-Tory tactical voting. The overall result? More Tory votes nationally, but perhaps very few - if any - extra Tory seats.

    I think you put your finger on why the Johnson discourse is a dialogue of the deaf.

    Those who never liked him and couldn’t see what the fuss was about (in some cases through exposure to his type in other walks of life) cannot grasp how he could be remotely popular, so they refuse to believe it.

    Those who really like him find it extremely difficult to imagine a world where others wouldn’t.

    It’s a mutual blind spot. The key then is the rest of the country, the maybe 60% who were more prosaic in their assessment of him. Immune from the stardust but happy to appreciate his good points.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    I have long said that the Coalition will be seen by history as a rare example of good government.
    I disagree. A lot of the problems we face today, eg the collapse of local government, are rooted in decisions made by the coalition government. It also led to the destruction of the Lib Dems, hence a Tory government committed to an EU referendum hence the calamitous Brexit vote.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    38m
    Twice as many people know Lee Anderson compared to Richard Tice. So name recognition alone will give Reform a boost. Not as much as if Nigel Farage was properly coming out to play. But a boost non-the-less.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    The Hodge needs to tell us how many people 'know' Lee Anderson - is it 10, 100, 1,000,000, 20,000,000? - then we can make a judgement.
    And how many people think Farage is the leader of Reform anyway.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    I have long said that the Coalition will be seen by history as a rare example of good government.
    I disagree. A lot of the problems we face today, eg the collapse of local government, are rooted in decisions made by the coalition government. It also led to the destruction of the Lib Dems, hence a Tory government committed to an EU referendum hence the calamitous Brexit vote.
    I’d triangulate on these two positions. It was a period of generally good governance and generally bad policy.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    The process is silly. They have to call Tory and opposition members in turn. There were opposition questions on the order paper he couldn't call because few Tories wanted to ask a question.

    As he was going to have to skip questions off the order paper anyway I think it would - in the circumstances - have made sense to call Abbott instead of another one. He would have been criticised for that as well as going against the long-standing convention. And we know how that went last time.

    The rule - as he said last time - is archaic and needs revising. If Tory MPs are cowards and don't want to ask the shitty whip question the speaker should just call more opposition MPs.
    Yes, and what a waste of time it usually is to have sycophantic backbenchers asking, "does the PM agree with me that X is the best thing since sliced bread" about some local development in their constituency. The point of PMQs is questions to the PM about the running of his government. If Tory MPs really don't have any concerns about that then the time should be given to those who do.

    Once again Parliament is showing itself as simply not fit for purpose.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    TimS said:


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    38m
    Twice as many people know Lee Anderson compared to Richard Tice. So name recognition alone will give Reform a boost. Not as much as if Nigel Farage was properly coming out to play. But a boost non-the-less.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    The Hodge needs to tell us how many people 'know' Lee Anderson - is it 10, 100, 1,000,000, 20,000,000? - then we can make a judgement.
    And how many people think Farage is the leader of Reform anyway.
    I think he's quoting ipsos research. 30% of public know him. Apparently.

    I am sceptical, but it is ipsos. Online though.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    ohnotnow said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    It seems Hoyle had a fixed list of MPs to call determined by protocol. He didn't have the flexibility of mind either to substitute Abbott for one of them or extend the session slightly to accommodate her. I don't think he was being sexist.
    He had a fixed list - but still managed to call other people who weren't on it.
    I wasn't aware the list was fixed in that no one else is called.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554
    TimS said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    I have long said that the Coalition will be seen by history as a rare example of good government.
    I disagree. A lot of the problems we face today, eg the collapse of local government, are rooted in decisions made by the coalition government. It also led to the destruction of the Lib Dems, hence a Tory government committed to an EU referendum hence the calamitous Brexit vote.
    I’d triangulate on these two positions. It was a period of generally good governance and generally bad policy.
    On good governance I will refer you to the Post Office scandal - the issue was known about but allowed to continue.

    So the policies were beyond woeful (austerity probably led to Brexit), the lack of planning means we need new Gas power stations to ensure we don’t have failures in future winters and our local Governments are falling apart.

    So I really don’t see the coalition being regarded as good in the future
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    I guess Easter recess can't come soon enough for Hoyle.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462

    I think the last 8 years have shown MPs aren't good enough to be PM, we need a PM from the Lords.

    I take it you mean Floella Benjamin?
    I think a government of national unity led by Floella Benjamin is exactly what this country needs.
  • Options
    AbandonedHopeAbandonedHope Posts: 136
    I've just heard Gove on R4 Today. He said that Frank Hester had shown "contrition", apologised and that should draw a line under the matter. It was a position repeated yesterday at PMQs.

    I'm rather surprised that Labour haven't come back a little stronger on this with a comparable demonstration of "contrition". Afzhar Ali showed "contrition" and apologised. That should have drawn a line under the matter. But it didn't.

    If I were Labour I'd be forcing the Conservatives to say "Ah, but Afzhar Ali was different to Frank Hester" and then make them explain why it was different, eg. "Because Afzhar Ali's comments were anti-semitic".

    The obvious attack line for Labour then becomes "Are you saying that one type of hate or racism is more important than another? Are you saying the lives of the Jewish community matter more than the lives of the Black community?"
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462

    I've just heard Gove on R4 Today. He said that Frank Hester had shown "contrition", apologised and that should draw a line under the matter. It was a position repeated yesterday at PMQs.

    I'm rather surprised that Labour haven't come back a little stronger on this with a comparable demonstration of "contrition". Afzhar Ali showed "contrition" and apologised. That should have drawn a line under the matter. But it didn't.

    If I were Labour I'd be forcing the Conservatives to say "Ah, but Afzhar Ali was different to Frank Hester" and then make them explain why it was different, eg. "Because Afzhar Ali's comments were anti-semitic".

    The obvious attack line for Labour then becomes "Are you saying that one type of hate or racism is more important than another? Are you saying the lives of the Jewish community matter more than the lives of the Black community?"

    Can there be any doubt that the latter is the Tory position?
  • Options
    AbandonedHopeAbandonedHope Posts: 136

    I've just heard Gove on R4 Today. He said that Frank Hester had shown "contrition", apologised and that should draw a line under the matter. It was a position repeated yesterday at PMQs.

    I'm rather surprised that Labour haven't come back a little stronger on this with a comparable demonstration of "contrition". Afzhar Ali showed "contrition" and apologised. That should have drawn a line under the matter. But it didn't.

    If I were Labour I'd be forcing the Conservatives to say "Ah, but Afzhar Ali was different to Frank Hester" and then make them explain why it was different, eg. "Because Afzhar Ali's comments were anti-semitic".

    The obvious attack line for Labour then becomes "Are you saying that one type of hate or racism is more important than another? Are you saying the lives of the Jewish community matter more than the lives of the Black community?"

    Can there be any doubt that the latter is the Tory position?
    No. I don't suppose that there is any doubt.

    My point is that Labour should be forcing the Conservatives to say why there's a difference between Afzhar Ali and Frank Hester. And then they should be hammering them for it.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,031
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    It seems Hoyle had a fixed list of MPs to call determined by protocol. He didn't have the flexibility of mind either to substitute Abbott for one of them or extend the session slightly to accommodate her. I don't think he was being sexist.
    If only Sir Keir or one of his bruisers had barrelled into the Speaker's office before PMQs to say 'nice speakership you've got there, shame if something happened to it'..
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,085

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    I have long said that the Coalition will be seen by history as a rare example of good government.
    I disagree. A lot of the problems we face today, eg the collapse of local government, are rooted in decisions made by the coalition government. It also led to the destruction of the Lib Dems, hence a Tory government committed to an EU referendum hence the calamitous Brexit vote.
    The policies may have been one thing or another but people liked the idea of a collaborative government which had to park the partisanship. That is not a bad model and likely what people hark back to fondly.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,449
    Heathener said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    My former lifelong-tory-voting friend in Surrey would vote Conservative if Boris was leader.

    It’s bonkers but true: she would.

    It’s the Boris effect. Particularly with certain ladies. Not me, I hasten to add. I saw through that sleazy schmuck a long time ago.

    Boris would just about pull in some red wall seats and probably get the tories into the 30’s percentage.
    And my calculation is that Johnson will enjoy people saying that about him (even if it is probably true) and never want to put it to the test.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,224
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @LizzyBuchan

    Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters

    They just don’t get that it’s the Conservative Party that’s the problem, not the leader.
    “Boris still has that stardust” she said. If only we had a Conservative government we could turn things round. She actually said that.

    She also commented that when she goes door knocking about a third are Labour, a third Tory and the rest undecided former Tory voters. Well in 2019 Labour got 35% of the vote so she’s either very selectively knocking or Morley & Outwood is a unique constituency where Labour are going backwards,

    I get where people like @isam are coming from with Johnson. He will inspire more 2019 Tories to vote Tory. He is actively liked by a section of that vote in a way that no other Tory is. No-one is going to positively vote for Sunak. However, there is another side to the equation: Johnson is toxic in a way that Sunak is not. Those who dislike him really dislike him = and there are an awful lot of these people around. Johnson as leader would galvanise the anti-Tory vote and maximise anti-Tory tactical voting. The overall result? More Tory votes nationally, but perhaps very few - if any - extra Tory seats.

    I think you put your finger on why the Johnson discourse is a dialogue of the deaf.

    Those who never liked him and couldn’t see what the fuss was about (in some cases through exposure to his type in other walks of life) cannot grasp how he could be remotely popular, so they refuse to believe it.

    Those who really like him find it extremely difficult to imagine a world where others wouldn’t.

    It’s a mutual blind spot. The key then is the rest of the country, the maybe 60% who were more prosaic in their assessment of him. Immune from the stardust but happy to appreciate his good points.
    I hate him but I do get the appeal. No other Con leader could have pulled off what he did in winning that 80 seat majority. Yes, Corbyn helped a lot, and it was mainly about Brexit, but there was plenty of 'Boris' in the mix too. It's churlish and wrong to deny this. I don't know why people strain so much to do so.

    However he had to be canned, his low character had been too well exposed and as a consequence his appeal is not what it was. The 'B' brand is badly tarnished. He's history, really, but as a pure hypothetical you can try and assess how the Cons would do in the coming election if somehow he could be magicked back as PM. I think he'd be worth about 25 seats.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. Doesn’t the 2010-2015 Coalition Government seem like total bliss and utopia compared to now?

    (Not for students, I ‘grant' you)

    I have long said that the Coalition will be seen by history as a rare example of good government.
    I disagree. A lot of the problems we face today, eg the collapse of local government, are rooted in decisions made by the coalition government. It also led to the destruction of the Lib Dems, hence a Tory government committed to an EU referendum hence the calamitous Brexit vote.
    The policies may have been one thing or another but people liked the idea of a collaborative government which had to park the partisanship. That is not a bad model and likely what people hark back to fondly.
    Yes. The optics, and the image this projected.

    Some will think that important, others won’t care about the optics because the policy is what matters. It’s probably the contrast with 2016 onwards that puts the coalition modus operandi in such a good light.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,017

    ohnotnow said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    It seems Hoyle had a fixed list of MPs to call determined by protocol. He didn't have the flexibility of mind either to substitute Abbott for one of them or extend the session slightly to accommodate her. I don't think he was being sexist.
    He had a fixed list - but still managed to call other people who weren't on it.
    He didn't call other Labour MPs who weren't on the list. The rules are explicit, and some of the criticism is down to ignorance of the way the Commons works. There is a list of 20 people who are randomly selected from those wishing to put a question at PMQs. You MUST as Speaker call speakers in this order (though the LOTO and 3rd party leaders may intervene at any point):

    1. The next person on the list from the other side of the House from the last.
    2. A person of your choice from the other side of the House from the last.

    Hoyle's problem, as I understand it, was that there were, randomly, a lot of non-Tories on the list of 20 this week, so he had to keep working through them for every second question. If you were, say, a LibDem in position 16 and he called Diane instead and you therefore didn't get called, you'd complain that he'd broken the rules to help an ex-colleague.

    I agree that he could have allowed PMQs to run over for a few minutes with a view to calling Diane. However, I'm not sure he'd have exhausted the list of Opposition MPs waiting to speak who would automatically have been given preference, so it wouldn't (in that case - I've not checked) have solved it. It would however be open to him to grant an emergency debate on a subject of an MP's choosing, so I wonder if Diane might choose to pursue that route - say "The influence of major individual donors on British political life". All parties would have some awkward things to deal with but that wouldn't worry her. It would arguably be a good example of the value of having a few "awkward" MPs.

    The decision is not, as some have suggested, in the same category as deciding which amendment to call, since that is explicitly a matter for the Speaker to decide, though he is expected to take precedent into account.
    Great to get this input, thanks.
    It is very easy to jump to conclusions about complicated issues.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,247

    ohnotnow said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    It seems Hoyle had a fixed list of MPs to call determined by protocol. He didn't have the flexibility of mind either to substitute Abbott for one of them or extend the session slightly to accommodate her. I don't think he was being sexist.
    He had a fixed list - but still managed to call other people who weren't on it.
    He didn't call other Labour MPs who weren't on the list. The rules are explicit, and some of the criticism is down to ignorance of the way the Commons works. There is a list of 20 people who are randomly selected from those wishing to put a question at PMQs. You MUST as Speaker call speakers in this order (though the LOTO and 3rd party leaders may intervene at any point):

    1. The next person on the list from the other side of the House from the last.
    2. A person of your choice from the other side of the House from the last.

    Hoyle's problem, as I understand it, was that there were, randomly, a lot of non-Tories on the list of 20 this week, so he had to keep working through them for every second question. If you were, say, a LibDem in position 16 and he called Diane instead and you therefore didn't get called, you'd complain that he'd broken the rules to help an ex-colleague.

    I agree that he could have allowed PMQs to run over for a few minutes with a view to calling Diane. However, I'm not sure he'd have exhausted the list of Opposition MPs waiting to speak who would automatically have been given preference, so it wouldn't (in that case - I've not checked) have solved it. It would however be open to him to grant an emergency debate on a subject of an MP's choosing, so I wonder if Diane might choose to pursue that route - say "The influence of major individual donors on British political life". All parties would have some awkward things to deal with but that wouldn't worry her. It would arguably be a good example of the value of having a few "awkward" MPs.

    The decision is not, as some have suggested, in the same category as deciding which amendment to call, since that is explicitly a matter for the Speaker to decide, though he is expected to take precedent into account.
    I really wish the like button still showed who pressed it so I didn't have to reply to indicate 'ah! thanks!'.

    But here we are. I blame AI...
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    That was quite extraordinary.
    It was, for a Speaker who quite recently upended precedent, him hiding under the precedence of the order paper was pathetic.

    That said, Labour missed a trick, back in 2009 when the story broke about Gordon Brown's team trying to smear Tories including Dave and Nadine Dorries, it was agreed by Dave and the party, no Tory MP would stand to ask questions at PMQs until Nadine Dorries was called worked.
    Rather hard for Labour to do, when she's currently expelled, tho
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    “ I expect after May’s locals is when Sunak will be at maximum risk when the Tories get spanked at the local elections with Tory councillors set to play the role of the troops at Gallipoli under First Sea Lord Sunak.”

    Dear TSE , you do realise this is just one of the strong reasons to have May 2nd General Election, which you long time poo poo’d?

    As we now get closer to all the reasons becoming reality, bad locals, covid report, slow cutting of interest rates, surge in boat crossings, is it only now you come awake to the dangerous, Swingback killing, impact of them?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    edited March 14

    ohnotnow said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yesterday in Parliament Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and catch the Speaker's eye so that during a debate when other MPs were talking about her, about misogyny and racism and violence against women, she could say her piece.

    But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.

    I agree about the effect, but I think you're misidentifying the cause.

    I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.

    After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
    Oh come off it! Hoyle was perfectly prepared to overturn convention - even against advice from his clerks - when it came to what motions would be debated. He could perfectly well have asked her to speak. She is an MP and her voice should be heard in Parliament.

    Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
    See my comment above.

    I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.

    "We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
    To have a PMQs dominated by whether she had been racially abused and not to call her when she was clearly anxious to speak was beyond bizarre. Having been reasonably ok through most of his tenure Hoyle just seems to have lost it recently and this plain and simple error said nothing good about Parliament.

    Hoyle has always given me the impression that he is just out of his depth as Speaker. The last few weeks have confirmed that. I don't see conspiracy or malevolence, just someone who is not up to the job. A decent man promoted to a role that is way beyond his abilities. If Labour does get a big majority after the next GE, a far stronger, more authoritative Speaker is going to be required.

    It seems Hoyle had a fixed list of MPs to call determined by protocol. He didn't have the flexibility of mind either to substitute Abbott for one of them or extend the session slightly to accommodate her. I don't think he was being sexist.
    He had a fixed list - but still managed to call other people who weren't on it.
    He didn't call other Labour MPs who weren't on the list. The rules are explicit, and some of the criticism is down to ignorance of the way the Commons works. There is a list of 20 people who are randomly selected from those wishing to put a question at PMQs. You MUST as Speaker call speakers in this order (though the LOTO and 3rd party leaders may intervene at any point):

    1. The next person on the list from the other side of the House from the last.
    2. A person of your choice from the other side of the House from the last.

    Hoyle's problem, as I understand it, was that there were, randomly, a lot of non-Tories on the list of 20 this week, so he had to keep working through them for every second question. If you were, say, a LibDem in position 16 and he called Diane instead and you therefore didn't get called, you'd complain that he'd broken the rules to help an ex-colleague...
    Would you really, in this case ?

    Hoyle's problem is as much that he has very little sense about when his bending the rules might offend the House, and when it might be overlooked by everyone.

    It is, after all, only MPs who can question House procedures, whatever the rules say.
This discussion has been closed.