The Festival Day 3 🐎 having assembled a team of returning Cheltenham winners and up and coming future megastars, I feel much more confident about my chances of adding to my 3 winners today, Cheltenham 1.30 - Colonel Harry Cheltenham 2.10 - Gaoth Chuil Cheltenham 2.50 - Stage Star Cheltenham 3:30 - Teahupoo Cheltenham 4:10 - In Excelsis Deo Cheltenham 4:50 - Jade De Grugy* Cheltenham 5.30 - Whacker Clan
*I never pick horses just because of my or family names in it, this horse will finish somewhere in the top 2, call me out if it doesn’t
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.
No this is not correct. 12 men were called; 10 women.
The Speaker most certainly made a serious error of judgement in not finding the time to call Abbott but to pretend that is because 'women can be seen but not heard' is plainly wrong.
“ 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?
One of us is going to be proven right in the next week.
When If I am proven right I will be magnanimous in victory.
The Festival Day 3 🐎 having assembled a team of returning Cheltenham winners and up and coming future megastars, I feel much more confident about my chances of adding to my 3 winners today, Cheltenham 1.30 - Colonel Harry Cheltenham 2.10 - Gaoth Chuil Cheltenham 2.50 - Stage Star Cheltenham 3:30 - Teahupoo Cheltenham 4:10 - In Excelsis Deo Cheltenham 4:50 - Jade De Grugy* Cheltenham 5.30 - Whacker Clan
*I never pick horses just because of my or family names in it, this horse will finish somewhere in the top 2, call me out if it doesn’t
The Festival Day 3 🐎 having assembled a team of returning Cheltenham winners and up and coming future megastars, I feel much more confident about my chances of adding to my 3 winners today, Cheltenham 1.30 - Colonel Harry Cheltenham 2.10 - Gaoth Chuil Cheltenham 2.50 - Stage Star Cheltenham 3:30 - Teahupoo Cheltenham 4:10 - In Excelsis Deo Cheltenham 4:50 - Jade De Grugy* Cheltenham 5.30 - Whacker Clan
*I never pick horses just because of my or family names in it, this horse will finish somewhere in the top 2, call me out if it doesn’t
The Festival Day 3 🐎 having assembled a team of returning Cheltenham winners and up and coming future megastars, I feel much more confident about my chances of adding to my 3 winners today, Cheltenham 1.30 - Colonel Harry Cheltenham 2.10 - Gaoth Chuil Cheltenham 2.50 - Stage Star Cheltenham 3:30 - Teahupoo Cheltenham 4:10 - In Excelsis Deo Cheltenham 4:50 - Jade De Grugy* Cheltenham 5.30 - Whacker Clan
*I never pick horses just because of my or family names in it, this horse will finish somewhere in the top 2, call me out if it doesn’t
Have a good day.
Hah! You've doxxed yourself there Ms. de Grugy!
The joke’s on you, she deflected by putting the asterisk in a false place when in fact she’s part of the Whacker Clan.
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.
Watching the documentary, I rather warmed for the first time to Jeremy Corbyn who spoke quite a lot and had some interesting insight into Boris' character. I think his appeal had a lot to do with the cult of celebrity, the sort of TV programmes people like, their low attention span, dislike of somebody "boring".
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.
My q to EXMP NP q’s on PMQs mini thread is: To what extent has the PM already been told the question he is being asked? I’ve always understood the PM hasn’t a clue what the LOTO is about to ask him, I’m doubting that now, as it’s become absolutely obvious, aside from the q’s from his own side whips and No.10 have placed themselves, some q’s from opposition back benchers Sunak reads so quickly from a script ready in his hand to answer, he must have known that was going to be their question.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please any side in the culture war.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
If it stops groups getting public funding and having the ear of government, surely that is something
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.
You probably WOULD complain. Typically only 12 MPs other than the leaders actually get called. Over the year that means that you''ll get lucky maybe once, but probably less if you're not very senior (I was called IIRC half a dozen times in 13 years). Would you be happy to see your only chance in the rest of this Parliament be taken away in favour of an MP wanting to put her view on a current issue?
It's not a guideline, it's a rule in how the job is to be conducted, as much a part of the regulations as the rules for counting votes. Personally I think the rule should be changed to allow more flexibility, and 6 questions for the LOTO is probably two more than are needed. But people who say "oh well, he could just ignore it" don't understand how the Commons works. That's the problem, not Hoyle.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
If it stops groups getting public funding and having the ear of government, surely that is something
Frank Hester's businesses would be a good example.
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...
No, blame Vanilla:
https://success.vanillaforums.com/kb/articles/1558-release-2024-003 Reactions moved to core We’ve moved reactions from an addon to core. Sites who previously had the reactions addon disabled will have all reactions disabled by default. Reactions settings that were previously in the addon are now on the reactions page.
https://success.vanillaforums.com/kb/articles/1562-release-2024-004 Created reaction.view permission Previously, you could only decide who could see who reacted to posts as a global setting in the reaction plugin settings. Now community managers can granularly control what role(s) can view who reacted to posts. Note: this does not control access to the reaction log, just to view who reacted in a hover popup.
...and maybe politely request RCS to look at changing the settings to reinstate the 'hover to view reactions' facility? I have tried several times and PMed him but I assume he's not seen my request as he's not responded yet.
I appreciate @geoffw* does not want the facility reinstated but most people seem to, er, like it.
(*Plus one other who liked his post but whom ironically I cannot identify.)
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.
Thanks Nick that's excellent and super helpful.
So it sounds, according to that, as though there would have been more legitimate outrage if, say, Hoyle consistently refused to call a particular person on the govt side, over which he has discretion, than someone from the list, over which he does not (in terms of choosing someone not on the list).
Gove should have plagiarised Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
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.
My q to EXMP NP q’s on PMQs mini thread is: To what extent has the PM already been told the question he is being asked? I’ve always understood the PM hasn’t a clue what the LOTO is about to ask him, I’m doubting that now, as it’s become absolutely obvious, aside from the q’s from his own side whips and No.10 have placed themselves, some q’s from opposition back benchers Sunak reads so quickly from a script ready in his hand to answer, he must have known that was going to be their question.
+1 I've wondered if that's the case too. If not, Sunak must have a brain the size of Wikipedia.
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.
You probably WOULD complain. Typically only 12 MPs other than the leaders actually get called. Over the year that means that you''ll get lucky maybe once, but probably less if you're not very senior (I was called IIRC half a dozen times in 13 years). Would you be happy to see your only chance in the rest of this Parliament be taken away in favour of an MP wanting to put her view on a current issue?
It's not a guideline, it's a rule in how the job is to be conducted, as much a part of the regulations as the rules for counting votes. Personally I think the rule should be changed to allow more flexibility, and 6 questions for the LOTO is probably two more than are needed. But people who say "oh well, he could just ignore it" don't understand how the Commons works. That's the problem, not Hoyle.
Bercow used to regularly go way over the 30 minutes. I'm sure Hoyle could have found a way to give Abbott a question had he been determined to so do. It needn't have been in place of another MP's question (though obviously there'd have been an opportunity cost somewhere); tacking a supplementary on at the end might have been an option, as could have been giving her Ed Davey's spot and deferring his question for next week.
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.
My q to EXMP NP q’s on PMQs mini thread is: To what extent has the PM already been told the question he is being asked? I’ve always understood the PM hasn’t a clue what the LOTO is about to ask him, I’m doubting that now, as it’s become absolutely obvious, aside from the q’s from his own side whips and No.10 have placed themselves, some q’s from opposition back benchers Sunak reads so quickly from a script ready in his hand to answer, he must have known that was going to be their question.
+1 I've wondered if that's the case too. If not, Sunak must have a brain the size of Wikipedia.
Wasn't there that famous T Blair anecdote whereby he said when the LotO stood up, he (The LotO) would intentionally leave the actual subject of the question (eg supermarkets closing in Grimsby) until the end to wrongfoot the PM. And equally it was well known that Blair had a huge folder in front of him with yellow stickies at each page of potential interest ("Supermarkets in the North") following that day's news which he would instantly flick to when he finally knew the subject of the question.
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.
You probably WOULD complain. Typically only 12 MPs other than the leaders actually get called. Over the year that means that you''ll get lucky maybe once, but probably less if you're not very senior (I was called IIRC half a dozen times in 13 years). Would you be happy to see your only chance in the rest of this Parliament be taken away in favour of an MP wanting to put her view on a current issue?
It's not a guideline, it's a rule in how the job is to be conducted, as much a part of the regulations as the rules for counting votes. Personally I think the rule should be changed to allow more flexibility, and 6 questions for the LOTO is probably two more than are needed. But people who say "oh well, he could just ignore it" don't understand how the Commons works. That's the problem, not Hoyle.
I think we're in agreement on that point.
But given the session ended earlier that it need have done (which is not infrequent) the next ballot MP didn't get called anyway. Had Hoyle called Abbott right at the end*, I would be very surprised had anyone made a massive fuss - and if they had done so, it would have further made the point about "how the Commons works".
*By that time the sense was very much that a lot of members expected her to be recognised.
Watching the documentary, I rather warmed for the first time to Jeremy Corbyn who spoke quite a lot and had some interesting insight into Boris' character. I think his appeal had a lot to do with the cult of celebrity, the sort of TV programmes people like, their low attention span, dislike of somebody "boring".
I'm reasonably well-acquainted with Boris (who is now a near-neighbour, incidentally) and I rather like him personally. But I agree with this point (and incidentally I think Corbyn is good at fair-mindedness to individuals - he was annoyingly reluctant as LOTO to stick the knife into errant Cabinet Ministers). The attention span issue also involves how the media choose to attract viewers. There is definitely an audience for serious TV/newspapers, otherwise Newsnight, Panorama, the Guardian, Times, etc. wouldn't exist. And locally you can win votes by talking seriously to people and not treating them like sheep to be herded by shouted slogans. However, you can't get any mass-media coverage at all for that, so it's tempting to go for the Boris approach.
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.
You probably WOULD complain. Typically only 12 MPs other than the leaders actually get called. Over the year that means that you''ll get lucky maybe once, but probably less if you're not very senior (I was called IIRC half a dozen times in 13 years). Would you be happy to see your only chance in the rest of this Parliament be taken away in favour of an MP wanting to put her view on a current issue?
It's not a guideline, it's a rule in how the job is to be conducted, as much a part of the regulations as the rules for counting votes. Personally I think the rule should be changed to allow more flexibility, and 6 questions for the LOTO is probably two more than are needed. But people who say "oh well, he could just ignore it" don't understand how the Commons works. That's the problem, not Hoyle.
I think we're in agreement on that point.
But given the session ended earlier that it need have done (which is not infrequent) the next ballot MP didn't get called anyway. Had Hoyle called Abbott right at the end, I would be very surprised had anyone made a massive fuss - and if they had done so, it would have further made the point about "how the Commons works".
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
If it stops groups getting public funding and having the ear of government, surely that is something
But the government already had the powers to do that without this non-statutory, publicity-seeking initiative.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
If it stops groups getting public funding and having the ear of government, surely that is something
But the government already had the powers to do that without this non-statutory, publicity-seeking initiative.
Given the reluctance to deal with extremist preachers recruiting in the prisons.... Which is an actual problem.
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.
You probably WOULD complain. Typically only 12 MPs other than the leaders actually get called. Over the year that means that you''ll get lucky maybe once, but probably less if you're not very senior (I was called IIRC half a dozen times in 13 years). Would you be happy to see your only chance in the rest of this Parliament be taken away in favour of an MP wanting to put her view on a current issue?
It's not a guideline, it's a rule in how the job is to be conducted, as much a part of the regulations as the rules for counting votes. Personally I think the rule should be changed to allow more flexibility, and 6 questions for the LOTO is probably two more than are needed. But people who say "oh well, he could just ignore it" don't understand how the Commons works. That's the problem, not Hoyle.
I think we're in agreement on that point.
But given the session ended earlier that it need have done (which is not infrequent) the next ballot MP didn't get called anyway. Had Hoyle called Abbott right at the end, I would be very surprised had anyone made a massive fuss - and if they had done so, it would have further made the point about "how the Commons works".
Yes, fair point.
As was yours, which very much clarified my thinking on the matter.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
If it stops groups getting public funding and having the ear of government, surely that is something
But the government already had the powers to do that without this non-statutory, publicity-seeking initiative.
Given the reluctance to deal with extremist preachers recruiting in the prisons.... Which is an actual problem.
Baffling comment. The very fact that 'extremist preachers' are in prison in the first place rather suggests that the government already has sufficient powers to deal with extremism (assuming this is who you're referring to - if such preachers are prison visitors rather than inmates, that should be easy to sort).
My q to EXMP NP q’s on PMQs mini thread is: To what extent has the PM already been told the question he is being asked? I’ve always understood the PM hasn’t a clue what the LOTO is about to ask him, I’m doubting that now, as it’s become absolutely obvious, aside from the q’s from his own side whips and No.10 have placed themselves, some q’s from opposition back benchers Sunak reads so quickly from a script ready in his hand to answer, he must have known that was going to be their question.
+1 I've wondered if that's the case too. If not, Sunak must have a brain the size of Wikipedia.
Definitely not for LOTO questions. As Topping says, the PM (not just Tony) has a huge folder with suggested answers for everything, and there is some serious rehearsal each week. And most of the time, even we in PB can guess pretty well what's going to come up. If something totally out of the blue appears, the PM will have some stock answer, e.g. "This is a matter for the Minister for shopping trolleys who will, I'm sure, have heard the LOTO's concern."
A Government back-bencher can curry favour by leaking the subject of their question to the PM's team, and will potentially be rewarded by a substantive reply acknowledging the MP's interest - "I know that the Honourable Member has worked hard on this issue and I have asked officials to meet her to discuss her concerns." This is sort of OK, but a more dodgy practice is for the PM's team to plant a question - "The PM would like to be asked about X, because he has an interesting announcement to make." Gordon Brown was rather uninterested in all this sort of maneuvering, and a colleague had a mortifying experience when he was tipped off what to ask in this way:
Colleague: "Will the Prime Minster announce any new developments in the field of ...?" Gordon: "No."
My colleague was incandescent and swore he would never ask another planted question. I must admit that the rest of us thought it was hilarious.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
If it stops groups getting public funding and having the ear of government, surely that is something
But the government already had the powers to do that without this non-statutory, publicity-seeking initiative.
Given the reluctance to deal with extremist preachers recruiting in the prisons.... Which is an actual problem.
Baffling comment. The very fact that 'extremist preachers' are in prison in the first place rather suggests that the government already has sufficient powers to deal with extremism.
No - my point was that nothing is being done about that.
Which is a simple fix - tell them no, at the prison gate. Unless you are a relative of the prisoner, the prison has (IIRC) nearly unlimited rights to say no to visitors.
There have been multiple instances of inmates being radicalised by such "preachers", in the past. See various terrorist incidents. It's almost a trope - "When we look at his background, turns out that he was a criminal, got radicalised in prison...."
When people have pushed on this in the past, the responses reminded me of the Rory Stewart run-around about the funding of a group on the foreign aid budget.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
If it stops groups getting public funding and having the ear of government, surely that is something
But the government already had the powers to do that without this non-statutory, publicity-seeking initiative.
Given the reluctance to deal with extremist preachers recruiting in the prisons.... Which is an actual problem.
Baffling comment. The very fact that 'extremist preachers' are in prison in the first place rather suggests that the government already has sufficient powers to deal with extremism.
No - my point was that nothing is being done about that.
Which is a simple fix - tell them no, at the prison gate. Unless you are a relative of the prisoner, the prison has (IIRC) nearly unlimited rights to say no to visitors.
There have been multiple instances of inmates being radicalised by such "preachers", in the past. See various terrorist incidents. It's almost a trope - "When we look at his background, turns out that he was a criminal, got radicalised in prison...."
When people have pushed on this in the past, the responses reminded me of the Rory Stewart run-around about the funding of a group on the foreign aid budget.
I don’t think the radical preachers are as much a problem as the radicalized prisoners targeting potential members within the prison population.
Hard to radicalize someone in 1 hour a fortnight easy to do it if you see them x hours a day
Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST [Standard Time], or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said.
Listening to Gove on R4 this morning, I've come to the considered conclusion that this new definition of extremism thing is a complete and utter waste of time. Even Gove, normally not daft, couldn't articulate what the point of it is. I don't think this pointless move will please either side in the culture war.
If it stops groups getting public funding and having the ear of government, surely that is something
But the government already had the powers to do that without this non-statutory, publicity-seeking initiative.
Given the reluctance to deal with extremist preachers recruiting in the prisons.... Which is an actual problem.
Baffling comment. The very fact that 'extremist preachers' are in prison in the first place rather suggests that the government already has sufficient powers to deal with extremism.
No - my point was that nothing is being done about that.
Which is a simple fix - tell them no, at the prison gate. Unless you are a relative of the prisoner, the prison has (IIRC) nearly unlimited rights to say no to visitors.
There have been multiple instances of inmates being radicalised by such "preachers", in the past. See various terrorist incidents. It's almost a trope - "When we look at his background, turns out that he was a criminal, got radicalised in prison...."
When people have pushed on this in the past, the responses reminded me of the Rory Stewart run-around about the funding of a group on the foreign aid budget.
I don’t think the radical preachers are as much a problem as the radicalized prisoners targeting potential members within the prison population.
Hard to radicalize someone in 1 hour a fortnight easy to do it if you see them x hours a day
Well, people in the prison service were complaining about the preachers. They got to hear what they were preaching, and it wasn't nice stuff.
Taking those who put their chances of voting for their highest-rated party at 50/100 or above, the implied vote shares are Labour 45%, Conservative 23%, Reform UK 11%, Green 8% and Lib Dem 6%. In Scotland, Labour lead the SNP by 30% to 28%, with the Conservatives on 16% and the Greens and Reform UK tied on 7%.
Based on these scores, only 36% of 2019 Conservatives currently say they are likely to vote for the party at the next election, while 8% lean towards Labour, 14% lean towards Reform UK, and just over a third (34%) say they don’t know or will not vote. ... Only 1 in 10 of those currently intending to vote Conservative said they were enthusiastic about their vote (“they’re doing a good job and deserve to win”), compared to 37% of Labour supporters who said the same. A majority (54%) of Tory leaners said they were not very enthusiastic (“not everything they’ve done is right, but they’re doing fairly well given the circumstances they face”).
Nearly 1 in 3 (32%) Conservatives said they were not enthusiastic at all (“I’m not very happy with them, but they are better than the alternative”) – compared with just 17% of Labour voters who said the same of their party.
A pointless exercise by Gove and coming after Hestergate looks laughable .
Any UK government's problem is this. Every single decision and every farthing they spend is open to both political and legal challenge. The end result of this is massive. Gladstone's governments more or less spent a few million a year and spent it on whatever they felt like at the time. Nothing stopped them, except the taxpaying voter.
By an incremental process each decision now has to be assessed by an infinity of laws, precedent and policy, and it is a perpetual motion machine. The more you have, the more you have to have and it is never ending. Read a few planning cases for just one example.
Extremism policies are part of this massive blob; it is part of being able to say 'No' to giving cash or whatever to X, Y and Z who will otherwise take you to court.
It is time this was reversed but it would be a hard and rocky road.
This is all mirrored at every level. So schools have to have myriad of policies on everything, which no-one reads, except trouble makers.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
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.
You probably WOULD complain. Typically only 12 MPs other than the leaders actually get called. Over the year that means that you''ll get lucky maybe once, but probably less if you're not very senior (I was called IIRC half a dozen times in 13 years). Would you be happy to see your only chance in the rest of this Parliament be taken away in favour of an MP wanting to put her view on a current issue?
It's not a guideline, it's a rule in how the job is to be conducted, as much a part of the regulations as the rules for counting votes. Personally I think the rule should be changed to allow more flexibility, and 6 questions for the LOTO is probably two more than are needed. But people who say "oh well, he could just ignore it" don't understand how the Commons works. That's the problem, not Hoyle.
Bercow used to regularly go way over the 30 minutes. I'm sure Hoyle could have found a way to give Abbott a question had he been determined to so do. It needn't have been in place of another MP's question (though obviously there'd have been an opportunity cost somewhere); tacking a supplementary on at the end might have been an option, as could have been giving her Ed Davey's spot and deferring his question for next week.
Starmer could have, of course, given up one of his questions.
Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST [Standard Time], or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said.
And yet when permanent daylight time was tried both here and in America, we came off it. From unscientific observation though, a lot of drivers are taken by surprise when sudden darkness arrives in autumn.
Thursday morning: boiler now fixed, defective part replaced
Verdict: a common problem with Worcester boilers, third one this week that the fitter has had to deal with in the same way
We had something similar a couple of years ago - a part made of plastic that wears out whereas if it was metal it wouldn't.
Top tip: Don't use the plug sockets near your boiler for charging tablets and phones!
Don't have electrics below your boiler that aren't waterproofed. Or in splash range.
Had a funny one in one place - the boiler setup included putting a spare socket and the power for the boiler immediately below the boiler. The British Gas guy wondered why I'd changed the boxes to waterproof boxes. Literally a minute later, as part of his servicing work, he turned a valve the wrong way and dumped a bunch of water. Onto the waterproof boxes.
Taking those who put their chances of voting for their highest-rated party at 50/100 or above, the implied vote shares are Labour 45%, Conservative 23%, Reform UK 11%, Green 8% and Lib Dem 6%. In Scotland, Labour lead the SNP by 30% to 28%, with the Conservatives on 16% and the Greens and Reform UK tied on 7%.
Based on these scores, only 36% of 2019 Conservatives currently say they are likely to vote for the party at the next election, while 8% lean towards Labour, 14% lean towards Reform UK, and just over a third (34%) say they don’t know or will not vote. ... Only 1 in 10 of those currently intending to vote Conservative said they were enthusiastic about their vote (“they’re doing a good job and deserve to win”), compared to 37% of Labour supporters who said the same. A majority (54%) of Tory leaners said they were not very enthusiastic (“not everything they’ve done is right, but they’re doing fairly well given the circumstances they face”).
Nearly 1 in 3 (32%) Conservatives said they were not enthusiastic at all (“I’m not very happy with them, but they are better than the alternative”) – compared with just 17% of Labour voters who said the same of their party.
Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST [Standard Time], or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said.
And yet when permanent daylight time was tried both here and in America, we came off it. From unscientific observation though, a lot of drivers are taken by surprise when sudden darkness arrives in autumn.
The scientists advocate for permanent standard time, not summer time, precisely for the reason of dark winter mornings.
Edit: Another interesting point in the article is that on public policy terms a more important issue might be places that are in the "wrong" time zone (normally further west than the timezone they're in). Some very large differences found at timezone boundaries in the US.
Perhaps Ireland ought to move timezone, and France really ought to be on GMT.
A pointless exercise by Gove and coming after Hestergate looks laughable .
Any UK government's problem is this. Every single decision and every farthing they spend is open to both political and legal challenge. The end result of this is massive. Gladstone's governments more or less spent a few million a year and spent it on whatever they felt like at the time. Nothing stopped them, except the taxpaying voter.
By an incremental process each decision now has to be assessed by an infinity of laws, precedent and policy, and it is a perpetual motion machine. The more you have, the more you have to have and it is never ending. Read a few planning cases for just one example.
Extremism policies are part of this massive blob; it is part of being able to say 'No' to giving cash or whatever to X, Y and Z who will otherwise take you to court.
It is time this was reversed but it would be a hard and rocky road.
This is all mirrored at every level. So schools have to have myriad of policies on everything, which no-one reads, except trouble makers.
Two fake interviews with SKS on my Facebook page this morning, both suggesting a career-ending situation. If it wasn’t for the local gossip, and sometimes information, I’d block Facebook.
Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST [Standard Time], or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said.
And yet when permanent daylight time was tried both here and in America, we came off it. From unscientific observation though, a lot of drivers are taken by surprise when sudden darkness arrives in autumn.
A pedant notes that permanent daylight time is only available in the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and comes at a price of cold and dark. It's just like living in Scotland really but with polar bears or penguins, so actually if you go to Edinburgh zoo you get the full experience.
Re PMQs. I do not think the book has been mentioned today so for your Christmas lists...
Punch & Judy Politics An Insiders' Guide to Prime Minister’s Questions By Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton
Prime Minister’s Questions is the bear pit of British politics. Watched and admired around the world, it is often hated at home for bringing out the worst in our politicians. Yet despite successive leaders trying to get away from ‘Punch and Judy politics’, it’s here to stay.
Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton spent five years preparing Ed Miliband for the weekly joust, living through the highs and lows, tension and black humour of the political front line. In this insightful and often hilarious book, including an updated afterword discussing the key events of 2018, they lift the lid on PMQs and what it’s really like to ready the leader for combat.
Drawing on personal recollections from key players including Tony Blair, David Cameron, Harriet Harman, William Hague and Vince Cable alongside their unique knowledge, Hazarika and Hamilton take you behind the scenes of some of the biggest PMQs moments. https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST [Standard Time], or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said.
And yet when permanent daylight time was tried both here and in America, we came off it. From unscientific observation though, a lot of drivers are taken by surprise when sudden darkness arrives in autumn.
A pedant notes that permanent daylight time is only available in the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and comes at a price of cold and dark. It's just like living in Scotland really but with polar bears or penguins, so actually if you go to Edinburgh zoo you get the full experience.
A more annoying pedant notes that you won’t see polar bears in Edinburgh.
You have to go 116 miles away to the Highland Wildlife Park. Or better still 1600 miles away to Svalbard.
Norway is stunning so I would heartily recommend the latter. I saw the northern lights last week on four consecutive nights, one of which was absolutely spectacular.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Good lord!
Careful now or @TSE will advocate him as the next PM
A pointless exercise by Gove and coming after Hestergate looks laughable .
Any UK government's problem is this. Every single decision and every farthing they spend is open to both political and legal challenge. The end result of this is massive. Gladstone's governments more or less spent a few million a year and spent it on whatever they felt like at the time. Nothing stopped them, except the taxpaying voter.
By an incremental process each decision now has to be assessed by an infinity of laws, precedent and policy, and it is a perpetual motion machine. The more you have, the more you have to have and it is never ending. Read a few planning cases for just one example.
Extremism policies are part of this massive blob; it is part of being able to say 'No' to giving cash or whatever to X, Y and Z who will otherwise take you to court.
It is time this was reversed but it would be a hard and rocky road.
This is all mirrored at every level. So schools have to have myriad of policies on everything, which no-one reads, except trouble makers.
Yes. A re-read of this is highly recommended. Thanks.
One of the dangers of all this is that one day a Year Nought person will be in charge, discover that a trillion bits of law, regulation and policy means you can't blow your nose without a risk assessment and being taken to court and, Napoleon like, say let's start again with me being able to do whatever I like. Which actually while tempting will certainly be even worse.
Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST [Standard Time], or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said.
And yet when permanent daylight time was tried both here and in America, we came off it. From unscientific observation though, a lot of drivers are taken by surprise when sudden darkness arrives in autumn.
A pedant notes that permanent daylight time is only available in the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and comes at a price of cold and dark. It's just like living in Scotland really but with polar bears or penguins, so actually if you go to Edinburgh zoo you get the full experience.
A more annoying pedant notes that you won’t see polar bears in Edinburgh.
You have to go 116 miles away to the Highland Wildlife Park. Or better still 1600 miles away to Svalbard.
Norway is stunning so I would heartily recommend the latter. I saw the northern lights last week on four consecutive nights, one of which was absolutely spectacular.
Shetlad does come close to 24 hour dayliught, or at least being able to read outside at midnight solar time, as I recall from staying in perhaps the northernmost B&B in early July once.
It should do, but when scrolling past posts on an iPad or iPhone I have accidentally flagged or liked posts, I fear that may happen with my own posts now.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Disastrous for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. A situation like this, when the Tories are extremely unpopular, should be the best possible one for the Lib Dems. Instead, they are doing worse than ever.
My q to EXMP NP q’s on PMQs mini thread is: To what extent has the PM already been told the question he is being asked? I’ve always understood the PM hasn’t a clue what the LOTO is about to ask him, I’m doubting that now, as it’s become absolutely obvious, aside from the q’s from his own side whips and No.10 have placed themselves, some q’s from opposition back benchers Sunak reads so quickly from a script ready in his hand to answer, he must have known that was going to be their question.
+1 I've wondered if that's the case too. If not, Sunak must have a brain the size of Wikipedia.
Definitely not for LOTO questions. As Topping says, the PM (not just Tony) has a huge folder with suggested answers for everything, and there is some serious rehearsal each week. And most of the time, even we in PB can guess pretty well what's going to come up. If something totally out of the blue appears, the PM will have some stock answer, e.g. "This is a matter for the Minister for shopping trolleys who will, I'm sure, have heard the LOTO's concern."
A Government back-bencher can curry favour by leaking the subject of their question to the PM's team, and will potentially be rewarded by a substantive reply acknowledging the MP's interest - "I know that the Honourable Member has worked hard on this issue and I have asked officials to meet her to discuss her concerns." This is sort of OK, but a more dodgy practice is for the PM's team to plant a question - "The PM would like to be asked about X, because he has an interesting announcement to make." Gordon Brown was rather uninterested in all this sort of maneuvering, and a colleague had a mortifying experience when he was tipped off what to ask in this way:
Colleague: "Will the Prime Minster announce any new developments in the field of ...?" Gordon: "No."
My colleague was incandescent and swore he would never ask another planted question. I must admit that the rest of us thought it was hilarious.
I would expect that to be a mixture. If it is a serious q wanting a useful answer, rather than knockabout, then I would expect MPs to give the PM advance notice so that he can sort out a considered answer, and to ask the question in a "not eye poking" manner.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Disastrous for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. A situation like this, when the Tories are extremely unpopular, should be the best possible one for the Lib Dems. Instead, they are doing worse than ever.
A degree of wait and see is in order. The next GE is likely to see tactical voting to a greater extent than sometimes. What counts with the LDs is where those votes are. In reality their range is more like that of the SNP (though they pretend otherwise of course), who of course get seats without many votes in national terms.
This is one area where the campaign itself will be important. The LDs won't be sending out bar charts in Bootle or South Holland but they will in 40+ seats they can win.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Disastrous for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. A situation like this, when the Tories are extremely unpopular, should be the best possible one for the Lib Dems. Instead, they are doing worse than ever.
Yes, agree, but for whatever reason they’ve been getting little or no air-time and TV exposure recently. I don’t think that’ll be the case close to the GE, after Christmas, and if they do as well as they might in the locals the media will suddenly wake up.
The Festival Day 3 🐎 having assembled a team of returning Cheltenham winners and up and coming future megastars, I feel much more confident about my chances of adding to my 3 winners today, Cheltenham 1.30 - Colonel Harry Cheltenham 2.10 - Gaoth Chuil Cheltenham 2.50 - Stage Star Cheltenham 3:30 - Teahupoo Cheltenham 4:10 - In Excelsis Deo Cheltenham 4:50 - Jade De Grugy* Cheltenham 5.30 - Whacker Clan
*I never pick horses just because of my or family names in it, this horse will finish somewhere in the top 2, call me out if it doesn’t
Have a good day.
Hah! You've doxxed yourself there Ms. de Grugy!
The joke’s on you, she deflected by putting the asterisk in a false place when in fact she’s part of the Whacker Clan.
That feels so true sometimes. 😏 my brothers latest wheeze is shifting new motors using various flexible car financing options, leasing and long loans etc. and he told me I’m getting a new A3, gave me a brochure said that’s yours, sign here. And I said I ain’t signing, I don’t want want it. And he started saying about two million bits of NASA technology in the car, and I said blast it into space then, I don’t want it, I’d rather have a GR Yaris. And he said he ain’t got no GR Yaris. He will end up as Arkwright from open all hours.
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.
You probably WOULD complain. Typically only 12 MPs other than the leaders actually get called. Over the year that means that you''ll get lucky maybe once, but probably less if you're not very senior (I was called IIRC half a dozen times in 13 years). Would you be happy to see your only chance in the rest of this Parliament be taken away in favour of an MP wanting to put her view on a current issue?
It's not a guideline, it's a rule in how the job is to be conducted, as much a part of the regulations as the rules for counting votes. Personally I think the rule should be changed to allow more flexibility, and 6 questions for the LOTO is probably two more than are needed. But people who say "oh well, he could just ignore it" don't understand how the Commons works. That's the problem, not Hoyle.
Bercow used to regularly go way over the 30 minutes. I'm sure Hoyle could have found a way to give Abbott a question had he been determined to so do. It needn't have been in place of another MP's question (though obviously there'd have been an opportunity cost somewhere); tacking a supplementary on at the end might have been an option, as could have been giving her Ed Davey's spot and deferring his question for next week.
Starmer could have, of course, given up one of his questions.
How would he have actually done that though? Stood up and said, 'please can the member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington ask my next question'?
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Disastrous for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. A situation like this, when the Tories are extremely unpopular, should be the best possible one for the Lib Dems. Instead, they are doing worse than ever.
Yes, agree, but for whatever reason they’ve been getting little or no air-time and TV exposure recently. I don’t think that’ll be the case close to the GE, after Christmas, and if they do as well as they might in the locals the media will suddenly wake up.
Coincidentally, just had my first GE leaflet... from the LDs telling me:
"Lib Dems to win North Dorset" say top polling experts: Survation
A pointless exercise by Gove and coming after Hestergate looks laughable .
Any UK government's problem is this. Every single decision and every farthing they spend is open to both political and legal challenge. The end result of this is massive. Gladstone's governments more or less spent a few million a year and spent it on whatever they felt like at the time. Nothing stopped them, except the taxpaying voter.
By an incremental process each decision now has to be assessed by an infinity of laws, precedent and policy, and it is a perpetual motion machine. The more you have, the more you have to have and it is never ending. Read a few planning cases for just one example.
Extremism policies are part of this massive blob; it is part of being able to say 'No' to giving cash or whatever to X, Y and Z who will otherwise take you to court.
It is time this was reversed but it would be a hard and rocky road.
This is all mirrored at every level. So schools have to have myriad of policies on everything, which no-one reads, except trouble makers.
Yes. A re-read of this is highly recommended. Thanks.
One of the dangers of all this is that one day a Year Nought person will be in charge, discover that a trillion bits of law, regulation and policy means you can't blow your nose without a risk assessment and being taken to court and, Napoleon like, say let's start again with me being able to do whatever I like. Which actually while tempting will certainly be even worse.
That was exactly what the Thirty Tyrants did in Athens.
They started off prosecuting the professional informers - the Athenian state paid for information to be given in court for certain crimes. With the inevitable results.
There was a lot of law in the way. So the Thirty just deleted all the law. Which also protected everyone else from what the Thirty wanted to do.
A pointless exercise by Gove and coming after Hestergate looks laughable .
Any UK government's problem is this. Every single decision and every farthing they spend is open to both political and legal challenge. The end result of this is massive. Gladstone's governments more or less spent a few million a year and spent it on whatever they felt like at the time. Nothing stopped them, except the taxpaying voter.
By an incremental process each decision now has to be assessed by an infinity of laws, precedent and policy, and it is a perpetual motion machine. The more you have, the more you have to have and it is never ending. Read a few planning cases for just one example.
Extremism policies are part of this massive blob; it is part of being able to say 'No' to giving cash or whatever to X, Y and Z who will otherwise take you to court.
It is time this was reversed but it would be a hard and rocky road.
This is all mirrored at every level. So schools have to have myriad of policies on everything, which no-one reads, except trouble makers.
Yes. A re-read of this is highly recommended. Thanks.
One of the dangers of all this is that one day a Year Nought person will be in charge, discover that a trillion bits of law, regulation and policy means you can't blow your nose without a risk assessment and being taken to court and, Napoleon like, say let's start again with me being able to do whatever I like. Which actually while tempting will certainly be even worse.
There are actually two endgames: the one you describe above and another where we pass over compliance with process to AI. The latter is the one we are probably moving towards unless there is some kind of disruption.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Disastrous for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. A situation like this, when the Tories are extremely unpopular, should be the best possible one for the Lib Dems. Instead, they are doing worse than ever.
They are suffering from not being third in Westminster seats, and haven't found any other way of gaining exposure.
Their record in local elections and by-elections is much better than in the opinion polls, suggesting that they aren't suffering too much from the lingering effects of Coalition.
Their target seat selection will be of vital importance to their prospects, and they may be praying for an SNP collapse even more fervently than Scottish Labour. If they are the third largest party at Westminster after the next election then they will have greater opportunity to benefit when Starmer and Labour become unpopular.
The Standard's web site is back (see last thread) and has exciting news about two... well, let's not get PB sued.
It's a fairly common term of abuse used against people who speak about cycling on social media - usually from accounts of people associated with football clubs, or sometimes white van men or cabbies, or generic wind-up merchant trolls. There's also a fair bit of 'I hope you get what your deserve' type stuff.
Especially about cycle cammers who report offences, notwithstanding that a majority of such incidents are reported by dash cammers.
According to the piece, Barton posted a photo montage comparing Vine to Rolf Harris, which is imo over the line.
Perhaps if he wins it will calm some of them down - though unlikely for the Usonians who sometimes dogpile-on, as the Sally Bercow case calmed down another tendency back then.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Disastrous for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. A situation like this, when the Tories are extremely unpopular, should be the best possible one for the Lib Dems. Instead, they are doing worse than ever.
Yes, agree, but for whatever reason they’ve been getting little or no air-time and TV exposure recently. I don’t think that’ll be the case close to the GE, after Christmas, and if they do as well as they might in the locals the media will suddenly wake up.
Ashcroft does not tend to be friendly to the LDs. The other polls have seen them ticking up marginally to 10-11% as the Post Office debacle fades into the background. I suspect they will win a few more votes than last time but a lot more seats. Back as third party in the Commons they would find things a lot easier
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Good lord!
We know what is going on, but do we know why? Why down and down against backdrop of giveaway budget warmly received, and inflation beaten, report yesterday of economic growth and mortgage costs falling?
Is it electorate anger at not getting spring election, or is it Sunak is so not rated now it’s pulling the party to new depths?
If you know why, let number 10 know, because they can’t do anything about it unless they know why.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Disastrous for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. A situation like this, when the Tories are extremely unpopular, should be the best possible one for the Lib Dems. Instead, they are doing worse than ever.
Yes, agree, but for whatever reason they’ve been getting little or no air-time and TV exposure recently. I don’t think that’ll be the case close to the GE, after Christmas, and if they do as well as they might in the locals the media will suddenly wake up.
Ashcroft does not tend to be friendly to the LDs. The other polls have seen them ticking up marginally to 10-11% as the Post Office debacle fades into the background. I suspect they will win a few more votes than last time but a lot more seats. Back as third party in the Commons they would find things a lot easier
Strange to think they are more likely to be the 2nd party than the 4th if polling is to be believed.
Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST [Standard Time], or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said.
And yet when permanent daylight time was tried both here and in America, we came off it. From unscientific observation though, a lot of drivers are taken by surprise when sudden darkness arrives in autumn.
It could make a material difference to the number of pedestrians getting hit by cars. Fridays in December have significantly more casualties than any other time, with a cluster from 5pm - 6pm.
You want to reduce the number of people commuting in the dark as far as possible.
A pointless exercise by Gove and coming after Hestergate looks laughable .
Any UK government's problem is this. Every single decision and every farthing they spend is open to both political and legal challenge. The end result of this is massive. Gladstone's governments more or less spent a few million a year and spent it on whatever they felt like at the time. Nothing stopped them, except the taxpaying voter.
By an incremental process each decision now has to be assessed by an infinity of laws, precedent and policy, and it is a perpetual motion machine. The more you have, the more you have to have and it is never ending. Read a few planning cases for just one example.
Extremism policies are part of this massive blob; it is part of being able to say 'No' to giving cash or whatever to X, Y and Z who will otherwise take you to court.
It is time this was reversed but it would be a hard and rocky road.
This is all mirrored at every level. So schools have to have myriad of policies on everything, which no-one reads, except trouble makers.
Yes. A re-read of this is highly recommended. Thanks.
One of the dangers of all this is that one day a Year Nought person will be in charge, discover that a trillion bits of law, regulation and policy means you can't blow your nose without a risk assessment and being taken to court and, Napoleon like, say let's start again with me being able to do whatever I like. Which actually while tempting will certainly be even worse.
There are actually two endgames: the one you describe above and another where we pass over compliance with process to AI. The latter is the one we are probably moving towards unless there is some kind of disruption.
The AI (AGI or otherwise) will just make it worse.
{Some uplifted lobsters have entered the Matrioshka Brain and implemented Economics 2.0}
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Disastrous for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. A situation like this, when the Tories are extremely unpopular, should be the best possible one for the Lib Dems. Instead, they are doing worse than ever.
They are suffering from not being third in Westminster seats, and haven't found any other way of gaining exposure.
Their record in local elections and by-elections is much better than in the opinion polls, suggesting that they aren't suffering too much from the lingering effects of Coalition.
Their target seat selection will be of vital importance to their prospects, and they may be praying for an SNP collapse even more fervently than Scottish Labour. If they are the third largest party at Westminster after the next election then they will have greater opportunity to benefit when Starmer and Labour become unpopular.
It does not help that they have a leader who is largely anonymous.
Lord Ashcroft has published a poll. I missed it if it was shared here. Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb CON 23% (-4) LAB 45% (+2) LDM 6% (-1) GRN 8% (nc) RFM 11% (+1)
Good lord!
We know what is going on, but do we know why? Why down and down against backdrop of giveaway budget warmly received, and inflation beaten, report yesterday of economic growth and mortgage costs falling?
Is it electorate anger at not getting spring election, or is it Sunak is so not rated now it’s pulling the party to new depths?
If you know why, let number 10 know, because they can’t do anything about it unless they know why.
The mood - if the economy had accidentally grown by 25% last month, and as a result income tax could be reduce to pretty much zero, the response would be a further drop in the polls.
The government have reached a place that anything they do right is ignored, and every fuck up is magnified. Once a government is in that hole, it's almost impossible for them to get out.
Comments
This is a brief review vid from somebody else; there are a few bits I disagree with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFXuw9EAioU
having assembled a team of returning Cheltenham winners and up and coming future megastars, I feel much more confident about my chances of adding to my 3 winners today,
Cheltenham 1.30 - Colonel Harry
Cheltenham 2.10 - Gaoth Chuil
Cheltenham 2.50 - Stage Star
Cheltenham 3:30 - Teahupoo
Cheltenham 4:10 - In Excelsis Deo
Cheltenham 4:50 - Jade De Grugy*
Cheltenham 5.30 - Whacker Clan
*I never pick horses just because of my or family names in it, this horse will finish somewhere in the top 2, call me out if it doesn’t
Have a good day.
The Speaker most certainly made a serious error of judgement in not finding the time to call Abbott but to pretend that is because 'women can be seen but not heard' is plainly wrong.
WhenIf I am proven right I will be magnanimous in victory.I think his appeal had a lot to do with the cult of celebrity, the sort of TV programmes people like, their low attention span, dislike of somebody "boring".
This is something
Are you not appeased?
It's not a guideline, it's a rule in how the job is to be conducted, as much a part of the regulations as the rules for counting votes. Personally I think the rule should be changed to allow more flexibility, and 6 questions for the LOTO is probably two more than are needed. But people who say "oh well, he could just ignore it" don't understand how the Commons works. That's the problem, not Hoyle.
https://success.vanillaforums.com/kb/articles/1558-release-2024-003
Reactions moved to core
We’ve moved reactions from an addon to core. Sites who previously had the reactions addon disabled will have all reactions disabled by default.
Reactions settings that were previously in the addon are now on the reactions page.
https://success.vanillaforums.com/kb/articles/1562-release-2024-004
Created reaction.view permission
Previously, you could only decide who could see who reacted to posts as a global setting in the reaction plugin settings. Now community managers can granularly control what role(s) can view who reacted to posts. Note: this does not control access to the reaction log, just to view who reacted in a hover popup.
...and maybe politely request RCS to look at changing the settings to reinstate the 'hover to view reactions' facility? I have tried several times and PMed him but I assume he's not seen my request as he's not responded yet.
I appreciate @geoffw* does not want the facility reinstated but most people seem to, er, like it.
(*Plus one other who liked his post but whom ironically I cannot identify.)
So it sounds, according to that, as though there would have been more legitimate outrage if, say, Hoyle consistently refused to call a particular person on the govt side, over which he has discretion, than someone from the list, over which he does not (in terms of choosing someone not on the list).
But given the session ended earlier that it need have done (which is not infrequent) the next ballot MP didn't get called anyway.
Had Hoyle called Abbott right at the end*, I would be very surprised had anyone made a massive fuss - and if they had done so, it would have further made the point about "how the Commons works".
*By that time the sense was very much that a lot of members expected her to be recognised.
Met to pay woman arrested at Sarah Everard vigil £10,000 after being sued - but maintains officers ‘acted in good faith’
Ms Edmunds said she will split the damages with pro-Palestine protesters "who have also been victims of police".
A Government back-bencher can curry favour by leaking the subject of their question to the PM's team, and will potentially be rewarded by a substantive reply acknowledging the MP's interest - "I know that the Honourable Member has worked hard on this issue and I have asked officials to meet her to discuss her concerns." This is sort of OK, but a more dodgy practice is for the PM's team to plant a question - "The PM would like to be asked about X, because he has an interesting announcement to make." Gordon Brown was rather uninterested in all this sort of maneuvering, and a colleague had a mortifying experience when he was tipped off what to ask in this way:
Colleague: "Will the Prime Minster announce any new developments in the field of ...?"
Gordon: "No."
My colleague was incandescent and swore he would never ask another planted question. I must admit that the rest of us thought it was hilarious.
Which is a simple fix - tell them no, at the prison gate. Unless you are a relative of the prisoner, the prison has (IIRC) nearly unlimited rights to say no to visitors.
There have been multiple instances of inmates being radicalised by such "preachers", in the past. See various terrorist incidents. It's almost a trope - "When we look at his background, turns out that he was a criminal, got radicalised in prison...."
When people have pushed on this in the past, the responses reminded me of the Rory Stewart run-around about the funding of a group on the foreign aid budget.
If so, CCHQ would love to hear from you.
Hard to radicalize someone in 1 hour a fortnight easy to do it if you see them x hours a day
https://arstechnica.com/features/2024/03/the-science-behind-why-people-hate-daylight-savings-time-so-much/
Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST [Standard Time], or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said.
Seemed obvious to shut that down. But no.
Taking those who put their chances of voting for their highest-rated party at 50/100 or above, the implied vote shares are Labour 45%, Conservative 23%, Reform UK 11%, Green 8% and Lib Dem 6%. In Scotland, Labour lead the SNP by 30% to 28%, with the Conservatives on 16% and the Greens and Reform UK tied on 7%.
Based on these scores, only 36% of 2019 Conservatives currently say they are likely to vote for the party at the next election, while 8% lean towards Labour, 14% lean towards Reform UK, and just over a third (34%) say they don’t know or will not vote.
...
Only 1 in 10 of those currently intending to vote Conservative said they were enthusiastic about their vote (“they’re doing a good job and deserve to win”), compared to 37% of Labour supporters who said the same. A majority (54%) of Tory leaners said they were not very enthusiastic (“not everything they’ve done is right, but they’re doing fairly well given the circumstances they face”).
Nearly 1 in 3 (32%) Conservatives said they were not enthusiastic at all (“I’m not very happy with them, but they are better than the alternative”) – compared with just 17% of Labour voters who said the same of their party.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2024/03/is-boris-an-asset-do-we-need-new-extremism-laws-did-the-budget-move-the-dial-my-march-political-poll/
Sample March 7-11.
By an incremental process each decision now has to be assessed by an infinity of laws, precedent and policy, and it is a perpetual motion machine. The more you have, the more you have to have and it is never ending. Read a few planning cases for just one example.
Extremism policies are part of this massive blob; it is part of being able to say 'No' to giving cash or whatever to X, Y and Z who will otherwise take you to court.
It is time this was reversed but it would be a hard and rocky road.
This is all mirrored at every level. So schools have to have myriad of policies on everything, which no-one reads, except trouble makers.
Fieldwork 7-11th March, changes with 8-12th Feb
CON 23% (-4)
LAB 45% (+2)
LDM 6% (-1)
GRN 8% (nc)
RFM 11% (+1)
It is the second libel case brought against Barton as a result of his recent activity on social media
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/jeremy-vine-joey-barton-bike-nonce-cycling-b1145229.html
The Standard's web site is back (see last thread) and has exciting news about two... well, let's not get PB sued.
Wednesday: increased rate of dripping
Thursday morning: boiler now fixed, defective part replaced
Verdict: a common problem with Worcester boilers, third one this week that the fitter has had to deal with in the same way
We had something similar a couple of years ago - a part made of plastic that wears out whereas if it was metal it wouldn't.
Top tip: Don't use the plug sockets near your boiler for charging tablets and phones!
Had a funny one in one place - the boiler setup included putting a spare socket and the power for the boiler immediately below the boiler. The British Gas guy wondered why I'd changed the boxes to waterproof boxes. Literally a minute later, as part of his servicing work, he turned a valve the wrong way and dumped a bunch of water. Onto the waterproof boxes.
Edit: Another interesting point in the article is that on public policy terms a more important issue might be places that are in the "wrong" time zone (normally further west than the timezone they're in). Some very large differences found at timezone boundaries in the US.
Perhaps Ireland ought to move timezone, and France really ought to be on GMT.
If it wasn’t for the local gossip, and sometimes information, I’d block Facebook.
Encouraging anti-ULEZ vandalism is both militant extremism and undermining (local) democracy, under the new definitions.
Punch & Judy Politics An Insiders' Guide to Prime Minister’s Questions
By Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton
Prime Minister’s Questions is the bear pit of British politics. Watched and admired around the world, it is often hated at home for bringing out the worst in our politicians. Yet despite successive leaders trying to get away from ‘Punch and Judy politics’, it’s here to stay.
Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton spent five years preparing Ed Miliband for the weekly joust, living through the highs and lows, tension and black humour of the political front line. In this insightful and often hilarious book, including an updated afterword discussing the key events of 2018, they lift the lid on PMQs and what it’s really like to ready the leader for combat.
Drawing on personal recollections from key players including Tony Blair, David Cameron, Harriet Harman, William Hague and Vince Cable alongside their unique knowledge, Hazarika and Hamilton take you behind the scenes of some of the biggest PMQs moments.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTXq2VQ09s
I hear house prices around here have suddenly plummeted....
EDIT: I always wonder, when I hear attacks on gentrification, why people don't take real action. Make the area sketchy again....
The combination of me and a trisuit has the most negative effect on house prices...
You have to go 116 miles away to the Highland Wildlife Park. Or better still 1600 miles away to Svalbard.
Norway is stunning so I would heartily recommend the latter. I saw the northern lights last week on four consecutive nights, one of which was absolutely spectacular.
One of the dangers of all this is that one day a Year Nought person will be in charge, discover that a trillion bits of law, regulation and policy means you can't blow your nose without a risk assessment and being taken to court and, Napoleon like, say let's start again with me being able to do whatever I like. Which actually while tempting will certainly be even worse.
Watch at:
NASASpaceFlight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrxCYzixV3s
or
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3
I'll probably miss it, as I'm going swimming at 12.30...
This is one area where the campaign itself will be important. The LDs won't be sending out bar charts in Bootle or South Holland but they will in 40+ seats they can win.
I don’t think that’ll be the case close to the GE, after Christmas, and if they do as well as they might in the locals the media will suddenly wake up.
"Lib Dems to win North Dorset" say top polling experts: Survation
They started off prosecuting the professional informers - the Athenian state paid for information to be given in court for certain crimes. With the inevitable results.
There was a lot of law in the way. So the Thirty just deleted all the law. Which also protected everyone else from what the Thirty wanted to do.
Their record in local elections and by-elections is much better than in the opinion polls, suggesting that they aren't suffering too much from the lingering effects of Coalition.
Their target seat selection will be of vital importance to their prospects, and they may be praying for an SNP collapse even more fervently than Scottish Labour. If they are the third largest party at Westminster after the next election then they will have greater opportunity to benefit when Starmer and Labour become unpopular.
Especially about cycle cammers who report offences, notwithstanding that a majority of such incidents are reported by dash cammers.
According to the piece, Barton posted a photo montage comparing Vine to Rolf Harris, which is imo over the line.
Perhaps if he wins it will calm some of them down - though unlikely for the Usonians who sometimes dogpile-on, as the Sally Bercow case calmed down another tendency back then.
Is it electorate anger at not getting spring election, or is it Sunak is so not rated now it’s pulling the party to new depths?
If you know why, let number 10 know, because they can’t do anything about it unless they know why.
You want to reduce the number of people commuting in the dark as far as possible.
{Some uplifted lobsters have entered the Matrioshka Brain and implemented Economics 2.0}
A problem that seems to afflict many politicians who need holding to account over COVID.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/three-years-of-messages-missing-from-first-minister-s-phone-covid-inquiry-told/ar-BB1jPY6Q?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=81433b2d7c07452888071da5e2bd15b7&ei=36
I've recently done a couple of rides in cycling shorts, and I wonder why I've never come across them before. They're so much more comfortable.
Penny Mourdant top with 45
Boris second with 37
Cameron 31
Sunak 29
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-Political-survey-March-2024-Full-tables.xls
The government have reached a place that anything they do right is ignored, and every fuck up is magnified. Once a government is in that hole, it's almost impossible for them to get out.