I am looking forward to super efficient batteries [ of course, lighter as well ] and super-conductive means of transporting electricity.
The first will take care of emergency spikes [ half-time during the world cup final ] and the second will enable the Sahara to light up Europe.
Both are on the way. After the 2022 nuclear ban, the Germans will have to bring electricity from the Baltic coast to the South.
This comment feeds into what I said last night. As far as I'm aware, "super-conductive means of transporting electricity." is not on the way. We're nowhere near creating room-temperature semidconductors, yet alone making them into a large-scale electrical transmission system.
If we wait for them, we may never do it. Instead, we need to plan to use the best technology we currently have, which will probably be a mega-boring, mega-expensive high-voltage DC transmission system.
Ooooh, some touchy LibDems tonight.... Getting in the "well, he was REALLY the Tory candidate all along" excuses early I see.
Ha, ha, Mr Mark!!! You`re joking! Please remind us just how many Tory MPs were out working for Mr Goldsmith... At least to the extent of appearing in his photo-ops... And Mrs May was so supportive of his campaign, that the blocked any Conservative candidate from standing.
Good! She deserves a position in government, she was a very able governor of Alaska and knows how to run a department.
When people ask me why I read political betting I tell them it is the internet's number 1 comedy site.
Agreed. On PB, white men have genuine grievances that must be heard, but minorities are just silly, stupid, delusional people who have a 'victim complex'. I've even read on here that Churchill's rather colourful views on race, for example, are just merely impolite. Not forgetting that there seem to be IIRC a few imperialist sympathisers on PB as well, presumably, they must think you're not British if you don't look back on Britain's imperialist past with fondness.
Some on here probably do think that. I have family members who say they cannot think of a single thing great about Britain or its history. An implication of the latter stirs up the former, and then you're into a pissing contest between people with no concept of nuance, as well as people who are harking back to a perceived sense of glory/oppression rather than necessarily any details of the periods in question. Do people really want a return to Empire, of taking over other nations? Not likely, even among the extreme.
As for imperialism and racist views of the past, it's important to not make gods of men, but also not to make devils - most people in most places were pretty openly racist not that long ago either, and if we act as though there is no worth in anything done by people or nations when they were more shitty than now, that would clearly be an error. We've clearly made progress, as the racist feel the need to explain they are not racist as they know racism is wrong, but people from more institutionally racist times, and more simplistic political times, do not mean there was no good from either, or that even if it was indeed not the sort of thing we would consider right and proper today, that it was egregiously terrible as a product of the time. Making more of a situation means a risk of learning the wrong lessons from history as much as pretending a golden age means no lessons are learned at all.
I very much enjoy history the further back you go, as people generally let themselves get lost in the amazing tales and incredible individuals, with less fretting that said people and cultures were probably arseholes.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
It would be a breach of the DPA to use Data, whether electonic or paper, for other than the use for which it was collected. If that were the party rather than the candidate then it would not be permitted.
I expect Zac to scrape home, but to no purpose. HR5 is going ahead and he is irrelevant. Expanding the PLDP by 12.5% would be much mre useful to the nation.
Some on here probably do think that. I have family members who say they cannot think of a single thing great about Britain or its history. An implication of the latter stirs up the former, and then you're into a pissing contest between people with no concept of nuance.
As for imperialism and racist views of the past, it's important to not make gods of men, but also not to make devils - most people in most places were pretty openly racist not that long ago either, and if we act as though there is no worth in anything done by people or nations when they were more shitty than now, that would clearly be an error. We've clearly made progress, as the racist feel the need to explain they are not racist as they know racism is wrong, but people from more institutionally racist times, and more simplistic political times, do not mean there was no good from either, or that even if it was indeed not the sort of thing we would consider right and proper today, that it was egregiously terrible as a product of the time. Making more of a situation means a risk of learning the wrong lessons from history as much as pretending a golden age means no lessons are learned at all.
I very much enjoy history the further back you go, as people generally let themselves get lost in the amazing tales and incredible individuals, with less fretting that said people and cultures were probably arseholes.
I love history as well. When I was at school, I used to especially enjoyed reading about the history of monarchy. I still do, but I'm still also critical of imperialism as well.
On your second paragraph, one example I'll give is Orwell. I think Orwell's critiques of communism/authoritarian dictatorships were excellent. I can't praise Orwell the person however, with his anti-semitic, anti-feminist, and racist views on certain things. I suppose people would say he is a product of his time, but I think that people, whether they are aware or not actively choose to believe in the things they believe. You don't have to subscribe to anti-semitic views, you can question the environment you are brought up in.
I think the problem is, is that too often we make 'gods of men' (or indeed, goddesses of women) when such individuals have complex, or undesirable aspects of their character. There is also a resistance to revising our views of certain historical figures, in light of how our own sense of right and wrong has changed.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Good! She deserves a position in government, she was a very able governor of Alaska and knows how to run a department.
When people ask me why I read political betting I tell them it is the internet's number 1 comedy site.
Agreed. On PB, white men have genuine grievances that must be heard, but minorities are just silly, stupid, delusional people who have a 'victim complex'. I've even read on here that Churchill's rather colourful views on race, for example, are just merely impolite. Not forgetting that there seem to be IIRC a few imperialist sympathisers on PB as well, presumably, they must think you're not British if you don't look back on Britain's imperialist past with fondness.
Some on here probably do think that. I have family members who say they cannot think of a single thing great about Britain or its history. An implication of the latter stirs up the former, and then you're into a pissing contest between people with no concept of nuance, as well as people who are harking back to a perceived sense of glory/oppression rather than necessarily any details of the periods in question. Do people really want a return to Empire, of taking over other nations? Not likely, even among the extreme.
As for imperialism and racist views of the past, it's important to not make gods of men, but also not to make devils - most people in most places were pretty openly racist not that long ago either, and if we act as though there is no worth in anything done by people or nations when they were more shitty than now, that would clearly be an error. We've clearly made progress, as the racist feel the need to explain they are not racist as they know racism is wrong, but people from more institutionally racist times, and more simplistic political times, do not mean there was no good from either, or that even if it was indeed not the sort of thing we would consider right and proper today, that it was egregiously terrible as a product of the time. Making more of a situation means a risk of learning the wrong lessons from history as much as pretending a golden age means no lessons are learned at all.
I very much enjoy history the further back you go, as people generally let themselves get lost in the amazing tales and incredible individuals, with less fretting that said people and cultures were probably arseholes.
The further back you go, the less the biases of today interfere - politics becomes history, I suppose. It's hard for people to get excited about Nebuchadnezzar, early Chinese dynasties or Prester John.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Some on here probably do think that. I have family members who say they cannot think of a single thing great about Britain or its history. An implication of the latter stirs up the former, and then you're into a pissing contest between people with no concept of nuance.
As for imperialism and racist views of the past, it's important to not make gods of men, but also not to make devils - most people in most places were pretty openly racist not that long ago either, and if we act as though there is no worth in anything done by people or nations when they were more shitty than now, that would clearly be an error. We've clearly made progress, as the racist feel the need to explain they are not racist as they know racism is wrong, but people from more institutionally racist times, and more simplistic political times, do not mean there was no good from either, or that even if it was indeed not the sort of thing we would consider right and proper today, that it was egregiously terrible as a product of the time. Making more of a situation means a risk of learning the wrong lessons from history as much as pretending a golden age means no lessons are learned at all.
I very much enjoy history the further back you go, as people generally let themselves get lost in the amazing tales and incredible individuals, with less fretting that said people and cultures were probably arseholes.
I think the problem is, is that too often we make 'gods of men' (or indeed, goddesses of women) when such individuals have complex, or undesirable aspects of their character. There is also a resistance to revising our views of certain historical figures, in light of how our own sense of right and wrong has changed.
Oh indeed. I have a problem with people overreacting to the revelation that people now, or in the past, were arseholes, to the point of acting like we must pretend they didn't exist, but too often we don't even get to the assessing step, of people or times.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Why would it be illegal?
Ah, the data protection act... Although presumably if the conservatives padded Zac a list of people he might want to knock up, that wouldn't be illegal
Some on here probably do think that. I have family members who say they cannot think of a single thing great about Britain or its history. An implication of the latter stirs up the former, and then you're into a pissing contest between people with no concept of nuance.
As for imperialism and racist views of the past, it's important to not make gods of men, but also not to make devils - most people in most places were pretty openly racist not that long ago either, and if we act as though there is no worth in anything done by people or nations when they were more shitty than now, that would clearly be an error. We've clearly made progress, as the racist feel the need to explain they are not racist as they know racism is wrong, but people from more institutionally racist times, and more simplistic political times, do not mean there was no good from either, or that even if it was indeed not the sort of thing we would consider right and proper today, that it was egregiously terrible as a product of the time. Making more of a situation means a risk of learning the wrong lessons from history as much as pretending a golden age means no lessons are learned at all.
I very much enjoy history the further back you go, as people generally let themselves get lost in the amazing tales and incredible individuals, with less fretting that said people and cultures were probably arseholes.
I love history as well. When I was at school, I used to especially enjoyed reading about the history of monarchy. I still do, but I'm still also critical of imperialism as well.
On your second paragraph, one example I'll give is Orwell. I think Orwell's critiques of communism/authoritarian dictatorships were excellent. I can't praise Orwell the person however, with his anti-semitic, anti-feminist, and racist views on certain things. I suppose people would say he is a product of his time, but I think that people, whether they are aware or not actively choose to believe in the things they believe. You don't have to subscribe to anti-semitic views, you can question the environment you are brought up in.
I think the problem is, is that too often we make 'gods of men' (or indeed, goddesses of women) when such individuals have complex, or undesirable aspects of their character. There is also a resistance to revising our views of certain historical figures, in light of how our own sense of right and wrong has changed.
Orwell had general quite conventional views of gender, but I think to claim that he had anti-Semitic or racist views is completely wrong, and I would be interested to know on what basis you state this.
Good! She deserves a position in government, she was a very able governor of Alaska and knows how to run a department.
When people ask me why I read political betting I tell them it is the internet's number 1 comedy site.
Agreed. On PB, white men have genuine grievances that must be heard, but minorities are just silly, stupid, delusional people who have a 'victim complex'. I've even read on here that Churchill's rather colourful views on race, for example, are just merely impolite. Not forgetting that there seem to be IIRC a few imperialist sympathisers on PB as well, presumably, they must think you're not British if you don't look back on Britain's imperialist past with fondness.
Some on hs.
The further back you go, the less the biases of today interfere - politics becomes history, I suppose. It's hard for people to get excited about Nebuchadnezzar, early Chinese dynasties or Prester John.
Well, people still give King John a hard time, but as crap a king as he was, I'm still mad he gets a bad time for the Richard stuff. Not like Richard never tried to take a crown from a relative! (take/rebel against etc)
I love history as well. When I was at school, I used to especially enjoyed reading about the history of monarchy. I still do, but I'm still also critical of imperialism as well.
On your second paragraph, one example I'll give is Orwell. I think Orwell's critiques of communism/authoritarian dictatorships were excellent. I can't praise Orwell the person however, with his anti-semitic, anti-feminist, and racist views on certain things. I suppose people would say he is a product of his time, but I think that people, whether they are aware or not actively choose to believe in the things they believe. You don't have to subscribe to anti-semitic views, you can question the environment you are brought up in.
I think the problem is, is that too often we make 'gods of men' (or indeed, goddesses of women) when such individuals have complex, or undesirable aspects of their character. There is also a resistance to revising our views of certain historical figures, in light of how our own sense of right and wrong has changed.
Orwell had general quite conventional views of gender, but I think to claim that he had anti-Semitic or racist views is completely wrong, and I would be interested to know on what basis you state this.
I don't know about his views on race in general, but having read Road to Wigan pier for the first time, he had some odd turns of phrase when talking about the natural beauty of the south east asians, and how he looked on the Burman as he would a woman, IIR the passage correctly. May read differently now than when it was written, perhaps.
For very much the same reasons as those expressed by OGH, especially the "partisan source" aspect, I became convinced that the Tories are set to win this by-election comfortably, not easily but comfortably. By this I mean deducting around 5% - 8% of the poll's stated LibDem share of the vote and allocating between 3% - 6% of that vote instead to the Tories. By my reckoning this would result in the Tories winning between 48.8% - 51.8% of the vote with the LibDems winning between 42.2% - 39.2%. A Tory win therefore by between 6.6% and 12.6% of the votes cast. Based on a 50% turnout of the circa 78,000 electors in the constituency, the foregoing percentages would result in a Tory majority of between 2,600 and 4,900.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
Surely its purpose was to aid the Conservative Party, as presumably it would be used not only to help Zac but also councillors and the like?
In any case, I doubt the party would risk breaching the law or regulation for a constituency that should be comfortable if they don't split the vote, i just think quibbling that he is a conservative backed by conservatives, and that this is meaningfully distinct from being the Tory candidate.
Some on here probably do think that. I have family members who say they cannot think of a single thing great about Britain or its history. An implication of the latter stirs up the former, and then you're into a pissing contest between people with no concept of nuance.
As for imperialism and racist views of the past, it's important to not make gods of men, but also not to make devils - most people in most places were pretty openly racist not that long ago either, and if we act as though there is no worth in anything done by people or nations when they were more shitty than now, that would clearly be an error. We've clearly made progress, as the racist feel the need to explain they are not racist as they know racism is wrong, but people from more institutionally racist times, and more simplistic political times, do not mean there was no good from either, or that even if it was indeed not the sort of thing we would consider right and proper today, that it was egregiously terrible as a product of the time. Making more of a situation means a risk of learning the wrong lessons from history as much as pretending a golden age means no lessons are learned at all.
I very much enjoy history the further back you go, as people generally let themselves get lost in the amazing tales and incredible individuals, with less fretting that said people and cultures were probably arseholes.
I love history as well. When I was at school, I used to especially enjoyed reading about the history of monarchy. I still do, but I'm still also critical of imperialism as well.
On your second paragraph, one example I'll give is Orwell. I think Orwell's critiques of communism/authoritarian dictatorships were excellent. I can't praise Orwell the person however, with his anti-semitic, anti-feminist, and racist views on certain things. I suppose people would say he is a product of his time, but I think that people, whether they are aware or not actively choose to believe in the things they believe. You don't have to subscribe to anti-semitic views, you can question the environment you are brought up in.
I think the problem is, is that too often we make 'gods of men' (or indeed, goddesses of women) when such individuals have complex, or undesirable aspects of their character. There is also a resistance to revising our views of certain historical figures, in light of how our own sense of right and wrong has changed.
Orwell had general quite conventional views of gender, but I think to claim that he had anti-Semitic or racist views is completely wrong, and I would be interested to know on what basis you state this.
@Kle4 Zac's a hot DILF with excellent ecooikophillic reformist tendencies. In many ways I'd prefer him to be an MP than the smugband pixieish Ms Olney. BUT... #1 You have to understand how badly his explicitly racist Mayoral Campaign has played with small l liberal voters. It was a watershed. #2 You have to undrstand what the liberal mindset is like at the moment. BREXIT, TRUMP, TREXIT, the Golden Lift. It's like living in the Apocalypse of St John. Zac is now the Dragon and Olney is St Michael. At the moment I'm so f*cking freaked out I'd personally order a nuclear strike on Zac Goldsmith. My only regret is I can't use Balefire to erase Zac Goldsmith from the timeline for the last 7 years.
Everything is sui generis here and utterly out of proportion to whats at stake. A midterm by-election for an atypical seat perhaps for a few months only until #Mayday .
Mr Submarine, please could you expand on the Golden Lift? I haven't come across the term before & Google doesn't show me anything beyond stair-lifts.
It's Labour's plan to win the senior vote, by installing gold lifts at all public stairways.
Now if you'd said Labour had a plan to win the senior vote by installing public conveniences at all public stairways, I'd say they might be on to something .....
I believe that the Labour candidate wants to do away with toilet paper.
On topic, it's about getting the maximum tactical vote. End of.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Why would it be illegal?
Ah, the data protection act... Although presumably if the conservatives padded Zac a list of people he might want to knock up, that wouldn't be illegal
Suppose he just has an extremely good memory? Does the Data Protection Act stop him using it?
"Undercover sting reveals 80 per cent of RAC patrols told customers with 'good' flat batteries they needed new ones"
But I thought the RAC patrol man was supposed to be a "very, very nice man" .... although now I come to think of it, I believe that was said instead of the man from the AA.
Good! She deserves a position in government, she was a very able governor of Alaska and knows how to run a department.
When people ask me why I read political betting I tell them it is the internet's number 1 comedy site.
Agreed. On PB, white men have genuine grievances that must be heard, but minorities are just silly, stupid, delusional people who have a 'victim complex'. I've even read on here that Churchill's rather colourful views on race, for example, are just merely impolite. Not forgetting that there seem to be IIRC a few imperialist sympathisers on PB as well, presumably, they must think you're not British if you don't look back on Britain's imperialist past with fondness.
Some on hs.
The further back you go, the less the biases of today interfere - politics becomes history, I suppose. It's hard for people to get excited about Nebuchadnezzar, early Chinese dynasties or Prester John.
Well, people still give King John a hard time, but as crap a king as he was, I'm still mad he gets a bad time for the Richard stuff. Not like Richard never tried to take a crown from a relative! (take/rebel against etc)
Whatever his merits, one rarely finds people judging medieval monarchs and their behaviours by the social standards of today.
Regarding the Lib dems 'poll' I don't see what harm this story will do to them, it's got them in the news again, sort of. the guardian, exactly the people who are going to vote for them. I think as news stories go it will be forgotten pretty quickly if they lose, it can just be dismissed as imperfect data. As others have pointed out they desperately need to win here so they may as well just throw the kitchen sink and anything else at the task. I wonder if the problem will actually be for goldsmith in getting out the vote. If his challenger is also anti heathrow expansion and you are pissed off about Brexit (As you probably are living in 70% remain Richmond) why bother turning up to vote? What are you going to lose if you don't vote? I can't work out what sort of kamikaze strategy (maybe strategy is too flattering) labour are playing here. Split the anti tory vote and then let back in the incumbent, by claiming that you will enact the same policy as the lib dems (opposing Brexit) even though you are the official opposition and it is not actually your party's policy.
Good! She deserves a position in government, she was a very able governor of Alaska and knows how to run a department.
When people ask me why I read political betting I tell them it is the internet's number 1 comedy site.
Agreed. On PB, white men have genuine grievances that must be heard, but minorities are just silly, stupid, delusional people who have a 'victim complex'. I've even read on here that Churchill's rather colourful views on race, for example, are just merely impolite. Not forgetting that there seem to be IIRC a few imperialist sympathisers on PB as well, presumably, they must think you're not British if you don't look back on Britain's imperialist past with fondness.
Some on hs.
The further back you go, the less the biases of today interfere - politics becomes history, I suppose. It's hard for people to get excited about Nebuchadnezzar, early Chinese dynasties or Prester John.
Well, people still give King John a hard time, but as crap a king as he was, I'm still mad he gets a bad time for the Richard stuff. Not like Richard never tried to take a crown from a relative! (take/rebel against etc)
Whatever his merits, one rarely finds people judging medieval monarchs and their behaviours by the social standards of today.
I know, it's just a pet peeve that Richard gets a pass in popular imagination as the good king betrayed by his brother and that's it. As far as I can tell, if a medieval king were not a bit of a hard bastard, they found it hard to remain king. But then my focus was more on the early modern period in any case.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
Yeeks .... this is such an incredible story, trumped by an even more incredible response from the BoE. Sometimes I fear the powers that be are totally clueless.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
Total or partial? And to what end would he tell them this? There's no way full freedom of movement is being supported by the Tories.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
'Hello I'm canvassing on behalf of the conservative candidate. How will you vote?' Candidate wins but later defects to say Labour. Would it be legal ore ethical to use those canvass returns (presumably stored on computer media) to help the now Labour candidate to be re-elected? OK now substitute Independent for Labour.
Yeeks .... this is such an incredible story, trumped by an even more incredible response from the BoE. Sometimes I fear the powers that be are totally clueless.
If it can be done at little to no cost, I can understand why a body would do it just to avoid a headache, although it seems pointless, there must be any number of things that include prohibited substances for some religion or another, but they just don't realise it.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
Where are those latest bookies' odds on BoJo being the first Cabinet Minister to leave office?
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
Where are those latest bookies' odds on BoJo being the first Cabinet Minister to leave office?
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
'Hello I'm canvassing on behalf of the conservative candidate. How will you vote?' Candidate wins but later defects to say Labour. Would it be legal ore ethical to use those canvass returns (presumably stored on computer media) to help the now Labour candidate to be re-elected? OK now substitute Independent for Labour.
My understanding was that it was legal for Carswell because he had modified the standard wording so he was a co-recipient of the data alongside The Conservative Party. If Zac didn't do that then it would be a breach of data protection laws for him to use the information.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
'Hello I'm canvassing on behalf of the conservative candidate. How will you vote?' Candidate wins but later defects to say Labour. Would it be legal ore ethical to use those canvass returns (presumably stored on computer media) to help the now Labour candidate to be re-elected? OK now substitute Independent for Labour.
The party will have a data officer who maintains the records, and controls access. Normally if someone jumps ship a responsible officer would be quick to revoke their access. The question here is whether the local Tory data officer has quietly maintained whatever access Zac, or his staff, had to the local canvassing data, or not. If he or his people still have full access, it would be easy for them to use it on the quiet.
An alert resident alive to whatever the Zac canvassers who are out door-knocking have on their clipboards, and what they appear already to know about the voter, would provide some interesting clues.
Edit/ and no, the disclaimer on the data almost certainly qualifies its use as for the Conservative party, so it would be illegal to take this data away and use it for someone or something else.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
Where are those latest bookies' odds on BoJo being the first Cabinet Minister to leave office?
Answering my own question ..... Laddies are offering odds of 6/1. Surely worth a very modest punt if these reports are shown to be correct, but DYOR!
For very much the same reasons as those expressed by OGH, especially the "partisan source" aspect, I became convinced that the Tories are set to win this by-election comfortably, not easily but comfortably. By this I mean deducting around 5% - 8% of the poll's stated LibDem share of the vote and allocating between 3% - 6% of that vote instead to the Tories. By my reckoning this would result in the Tories winning between 48.8% - 51.8% of the vote with the LibDems winning between 42.2% - 39.2%. A Tory win therefore by between 6.6% and 12.6% of the votes cast. Based on a 50% turnout of the circa 78,000 electors in the constituency, the foregoing percentages would result in a Tory majority of between 2,600 and 4,900.
I think it'll be a little closer than that, but agree with your general prognosis. Zac majority of 2,000 would be my guess.
I love history as well. When I was at school, I used to especially enjoyed reading about the history of monarchy. I still do, but I'm still also critical of imperialism as well.
On your second paragraph, one example I'll give is Orwell. I think Orwell's critiques of communism/authoritarian dictatorships were excellent. I can't praise Orwell the person however, with his anti-semitic, anti-feminist, and racist views on certain things. I suppose people would say he is a product of his time, but I think that people, whether they are aware or not actively choose to believe in the things they believe. You don't have to subscribe to anti-semitic views, you can question the environment you are brought up in.
I think the problem is, is that too often we make 'gods of men' (or indeed, goddesses of women) when such individuals have complex, or undesirable aspects of their character. There is also a resistance to revising our views of certain historical figures, in light of how our own sense of right and wrong has changed.
Orwell had general quite conventional views of gender, but I think to claim that he had anti-Semitic or racist views is completely wrong, and I would be interested to know on what basis you state this.
I don't know about his views on race in general, but having read Road to Wigan pier for the first time, he had some odd turns of phrase when talking about the natural beauty of the south east asians, and how he looked on the Burman as he would a woman, IIR the passage correctly. May read differently now than when it was written, perhaps.
Certainly. And I wouldn't want to defend his attitudes to women. However, I was brought up in a more or less exclusively white northern town during the 1970s and 1980s. I'm quite sure I occasionally, unconsciously espoused racist and homophobic views in my youth - views that I now find utterly repellent. Why do we hold Orwell to higher standards than we do ourselves?
A fifth ambassador was asked to corroborate the testimony of his EU colleagues and said he had not heard Mr Johnson saying those words, but was withering in his criticism.
"Johnson has no credibility with the ambassadors - they don't care what he says," he said.
(from the sky news article). Sounds like Boris is just out of his depth again and being a clown as usual.
Good! She deserves a position in government, she was a very able governor of Alaska and knows how to run a department.
When people ask me why I read political betting I tell them it is the internet's number 1 comedy site.
Agreed. On PB, white men have genuine grievances that must be heard, but minorities are just silly, stupid, delusional people who have a 'victim complex'. I've even read on here that Churchill's rather colourful views on race, for example, are just merely impolite. Not forgetting that there seem to be IIRC a few imperialist sympathisers on PB as well, presumably, they must think you're not British if you don't look back on Britain's imperialist past with fondness.
Some on hs.
The further back you go, the less the biases of today interfere - politics becomes history, I suppose. It's hard for people to get excited about Nebuchadnezzar, early Chinese dynasties or Prester John.
Well, people still give King John a hard time, but as crap a king as he was, I'm still mad he gets a bad time for the Richard stuff. Not like Richard never tried to take a crown from a relative! (take/rebel against etc)
Whatever his merits, one rarely finds people judging medieval monarchs and their behaviours by the social standards of today.
I know, it's just a pet peeve that Richard gets a pass in popular imagination as the good king betrayed by his brother and that's it. As far as I can tell, if a medieval king were not a bit of a hard bastard, they found it hard to remain king. But then my focus was more on the early modern period in any case.
I think the Robin Hood mythology has as much to do with that now as nothing else.
I love history as well. When I was at school, I used to especially enjoyed reading about the history of monarchy. I still do, but I'm still also critical of imperialism as well.
On your second paragraph, one example I'll give is Orwell. I think Orwell's critiques of communism/authoritarian dictatorships were excellent. I can't praise Orwell the person however, with his anti-semitic, anti-feminist, and racist views on certain things. I suppose people would say he is a product of his time, but I think that people, whether they are aware or not actively choose to believe in the things they believe. You don't have to subscribe to anti-semitic views, you can question the environment you are brought up in.
I think the problem is, is that too often we make 'gods of men' (or indeed, goddesses of women) when such individuals have complex, or undesirable aspects of their character. There is also a resistance to revising our views of certain historical figures, in light of how our own sense of right and wrong has changed.
Orwell had general quite conventional views of gender, but I think to claim that he had anti-Semitic or racist views is completely wrong, and I would be interested to know on what basis you state this.
I don't know about his views on race in general, but having read Road to Wigan pier for the first time, he had some odd turns of phrase when talking about the natural beauty of the south east asians, and how he looked on the Burman as he would a woman, IIR the passage correctly. May read differently now than when it was written, perhaps.
Certainly. And I wouldn't want to defend his attitudes to women. However, I was brought up in a more or less exclusively white northern town during the 1970s and 1980s. I'm quite sure I occasionally, unconsciously espoused racist and homophobic views in my youth - views that I know found utterly repellent. Why do we hold Orwell to higher standards than we do ourselves?
We shouldn't. I don't know enough about his writing or views to suggest whether certain unconscious views or inelegant, ignorant language was representative of his views. As per your example, perhaps it was an upbringing thing. I myself definitely used the word gay as an insult on the playground, I would hope that would not define me now.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
'Hello I'm canvassing on behalf of the conservative candidate. How will you vote?' Candidate wins but later defects to say Labour. Would it be legal ore ethical to use those canvass returns (presumably stored on computer media) to help the now Labour candidate to be re-elected? OK now substitute Independent for Labour.
My understanding was that it was legal for Carswell because he had modified the standard wording so he was a co-recipient of the data alongside The Conservative Party. If Zac didn't do that then it would be a breach of data protection laws for him to use the information.
Given that he's been planning to potentially trigger this by election for more than six years now since he first made the pledge and got elected ... he'd be a terrible planner if he's not followed Carswell's precedent.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
'Hello I'm canvassing on behalf of the conservative candidate. How will you vote?' Candidate wins but later defects to say Labour. Would it be legal ore ethical to use those canvass returns (presumably stored on computer media) to help the now Labour candidate to be re-elected? OK now substitute Independent for Labour.
My understanding was that it was legal for Carswell because he had modified the standard wording so he was a co-recipient of the data alongside The Conservative Party. If Zac didn't do that then it would be a breach of data protection laws for him to use the information.
Given that he's been planning to potentially trigger this by election for more than six years now since he first made the pledge and got elected ... he'd be a terrible planner if he's not followed Carswell's precedent.
Something about Zac's demeanour suggests to me that planning and attention to detail may not however be his core competencies.
Good! She deserves a position in government, she was a very able governor of Alaska and knows how to run a department.
When people ask me why I read political betting I tell them it is the internet's number 1 comedy site.
Agreed. On PB, white men have genuine grievances that must be heard, but minorities are just silly, stupid, delusional people who have a 'victim complex'. I've even read on here that Churchill's rather colourful views on race, for example, are just merely impolite. Not forgetting that there seem to be IIRC a few imperialist sympathisers on PB as well, presumably, they must think you're not British if you don't look back on Britain's imperialist past with fondness.
Some on hs.
The further back you go, the less the biases of today interfere - politics becomes history, I suppose. It's hard for people to get excited about Nebuchadnezzar, early Chinese dynasties or Prester John.
Well, people still give King John a hard time, but as crap a king as he was, I'm still mad he gets a bad time for the Richard stuff. Not like Richard never tried to take a crown from a relative! (take/rebel against etc)
Whatever his merits, one rarely finds people judging medieval monarchs and their behaviours by the social standards of today.
I know, it's just a pet peeve that Richard gets a pass in popular imagination as the good king betrayed by his brother and that's it. As far as I can tell, if a medieval king were not a bit of a hard bastard, they found it hard to remain king. But then my focus was more on the early modern period in any case.
I think the Robin Hood mythology has as much to do with that now as nothing else.
At my office we switch the finials on the staircase between characters from Dumas and Robin Hood depending on whether it's a charity event or a private party
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
'Hello I'm canvassing on behalf of the conservative candidate. How will you vote?' Candidate wins but later defects to say Labour. Would it be legal ore ethical to use those canvass returns (presumably stored on computer media) to help the now Labour candidate to be re-elected? OK now substitute Independent for Labour.
My understanding was that it was legal for Carswell because he had modified the standard wording so he was a co-recipient of the data alongside The Conservative Party. If Zac didn't do that then it would be a breach of data protection laws for him to use the information.
Given that he's been planning to potentially trigger this by election for more than six years now since he first made the pledge and got elected ... he'd be a terrible planner if he's not followed Carswell's precedent.
Carswell gives me the impression that he is intelligent. Zac... less so. I can easily imagine it's the sort of thing Carswell would think of and Zac wouldn't.
But that's going on their public image, so it might well be wrong.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
If the entire LibDem Party Machine throwing the kitchen sink at Richmond can't beat a lone guy with no party machine, no constituency canvassing records and a rag-tag of volunteers in a vanity by-election, then it really is time to point and laugh at them.....
Are you telling us that Zac does not have access to Tory canvassing records from previous elections ? Really ? He is the Tory candidate for all practical purposes.
I would like to point out that if he does have access to Tory data and is using it, that would be completely illegal.
Why would it be illegal?
Ah, the data protection act... Although presumably if the conservatives padded Zac a list of people he might want to knock up, that wouldn't be illegal
In the Michael Crick piece the Zac door knockers he spoke to were very quick to say that they weren't using Tory data.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
None of this can really come as a surprise to TM, so why did she give him the job?
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
None of this can really come as a surprise to TM, so why did she give him the job?
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
Maybe. But it was also essential for Boris to silence his critics and assuage his doubters by proving himself to be a solid and trustworthy politician. But he seems to be bumbling at every turn. But, as I've said, maybe he's looked at Trump and decided that's a more suitable template for his purposes.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
None of this can really come as a surprise to TM, so why did she give him the job?
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
None of this can really come as a surprise to TM, so why did she give him the job?
Yeeks .... this is such an incredible story, trumped by an even more incredible response from the BoE. Sometimes I fear the powers that be are totally clueless.
If it can be done at little to no cost, I can understand why a body would do it just to avoid a headache, although it seems pointless, there must be any number of things that include prohibited substances for some religion or another, but they just don't realise it.
Now starts the witch hunt for products derived from Tallow, you may be surprised. The renderers have enough problems already without this.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The time I spent with Boris, he did seem clueless in many respects, but I did detect a sharp appreciation of where he needed to position himself politically. So personally I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him being able to challenge May by alleging Brexit betrayal, after all.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The time I spent with Boris, he did seem clueless in many respects, but I did detect a sharp appreciation of where he needed to position himself politically. So personally I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him being able to challenge May by alleging Brexit betrayal, after all.
I can only judge him from an electorate perspective, and I'm not impressed
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
If so, can we agree he should be booted? He's an embarrassment to the country. Worse than that, he's causing harm.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The time I spent with Boris, he did seem clueless in many respects, but I did detect a sharp appreciation of where he needed to position himself politically. So personally I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him being able to challenge May by alleging Brexit betrayal, after all.
I can only judge him from an electorate perspective, and I'm not impressed
Johnson's spokesperson says he is pro immigration but wants to take back control to limit numbers and he did not say he supported freedom of movement and has challenged anyone to provide proof that he ever said that
I absolutely support his comments and do not see them as contradictory. Though it is Sky (EU) news reporting the story, no doubt with Faisal Islam and selective recall
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
If so, can we agree he should be booted? He's an embarrassment to the country. Worse than that, he's causing harm.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
Many came to his defence recently after his arselicking of Trump and hypocritical stance on Turkey. But he is pretty much detested now by the whole of the EU, and anyone who voted remain, so he is trying to find a new audience, although I get the sense he is personally very conflicted and uncomfortable in the position he has found himself in.
Nothing wrong with him saying he personally supports free movement, but it is inconsistent with the statements he made in the referendum. So he comes across as the worst kind of insincere opportunist.
In the end this is his first serious job in Politics, he has only otherwise been a backbench MP and mayor of London, and it shows in a big way. He just isn't in the same league as May, Hammond or even David Davis, in my opinion.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The till.
I can only judge him from an electorate perspective, and I'm not impressed
Johnson's spokesperson says he is pro immigration but wants to take back control to limit numbers and he did not say he supported freedom of movement and has challenged anyone to provide proof that he ever said that
They were supposedly private comments, he could well have said them and there'd be no proof, as even if he did he'd deny it and say the accounts of others are wrong. If they'd said he wanted to kill every immigrant he found, there's be no way to prove it either. So both sides are free to say whatever they like without fear of consequence. I don't see why you are allowed to take his word on his comments as a true account, but others cannot take another account as true, we have no way of knowing which is right, so you don't support his comments, you support his spokespersons spinning of whatever it was that was said.
That said, saying you are pro immigration would in the mind of most people mean something other than 'wants to limit numbers'. There's no reason you cannot think immigration to a certain level is good but we have too much now, but most people equate pro-immigration as being more than that.
And are we not trusting Sky News now either, I lose track who is not to be trusted as news outlets go.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
Many came to his defence recently after his arselicking of Trump and hypocritical stance on Turkey. But he is pretty much detested now by the whole of the EU, and anyone who voted remain, so he is trying to find a new audience, although I get the sense he is personally very conflicted and uncomfortable in the position he has found himself in.
Nothing wrong with him saying he personally supports free movement, but it is inconsistent with the statements he made in the referendum. So he comes across as the worst kind of insincere opportunist.
In the end this is his first serious job in Politics, he has only otherwise been a backbench MP and mayor of London, and it shows in a big way. He just isn't in the same league as May, Hammond or even David Davis, in my opinion.
While it would appear he has been misquoted he is absolutely not upto the job and any hope he has of becoming PM are long gone
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
Many came to his defence recently after his arselicking of Trump and hypocritical stance on Turkey. But he is pretty much detested now by the whole of the EU, and anyone who voted remain, so he is trying to find a new audience, although I get the sense he is personally very conflicted and uncomfortable in the position he has found himself in.
Nothing wrong with him saying he personally supports free movement, but it is inconsistent with the statements he made in the referendum. So he comes across as the worst kind of insincere opportunist.
In the end this is his first serious job in Politics, he has only otherwise been a backbench MP and mayor of London, and it shows in a big way. He just isn't in the same league as May, Hammond or even David Davis, in my opinion.
Ironically coming across as an insincere opportunist is about as an accurate impression as you are likely to get.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
If so, can we agree he should be booted? He's an embarrassment to the country. Worse than that, he's causing harm.
If that was the yardstick, most politicians from all sides would deserve the boot. Tim F and Kier Starmer spring to mind.
And is he actually causing harm? The prosecco comment is just Boris being Boris, no? And as with much of what Boris says, it seems like me to be that he gets the host of what most of the public are thinking. And often not far from reality either. I.e. we're a strong export market...
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The time I spent with Boris, he did seem clueless in many respects, but I did detect a sharp appreciation of where he needed to position himself politically. So personally I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him being able to challenge May by alleging Brexit betrayal, after all.
Once we're out of the EU, we are free to offer EU citizens as liberal terms to travel to, and live in, the UK as we like.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The till.
I can only judge him from an electorate perspective, and I'm not impressed
Johnson's spokesperson says he is pro immigration but wants to take back control to limit numbers and he did not say he supported freedom of movement and has challenged anyone to provide proof that he ever said that
They were supposedly private comments, he could well have said them and there'd be no proof, as even if he did he'd deny it and say the accounts of others are wrong. If they'd said he wanted to kill every immigrant he found, there's be no way to prove it either. So both sides are free to say whatever they like without fear of consequence. I don't see why you are allowed to take his word on his comments as a true account, but others cannot take another account as true, we have no way of knowing which is right, so you don't support his comments, you support his spokespersons spinning of whatever it was that was said.
That said, saying you are pro immigration would in the mind of most people mean something other than 'wants to limit numbers'. There's no reason you cannot think immigration to a certain level is good but we have too much now, but most people equate pro-immigration as being more than that.
And are we not trusting Sky News now either, I lose track who is not to be trusted as news outlets go.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The time I spent with Boris, he did seem clueless in many respects, but I did detect a sharp appreciation of where he needed to position himself politically. So personally I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him being able to challenge May by alleging Brexit betrayal, after all.
Once we're out of the EU, we are free to offer EU citizens as liberal terms to travel to, and live in, the UK as we like.
The whole point of the Leave campaign's 'taking back control' and 'Australian style system' is that we, collectively, didn't like.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The till.
I can only judge him from an electorate perspective, and I'm not impressed
Johnson's spokesperson says he is pro immigration but wants to take back control to limit numbers and he did not say he supported freedom of movement and has challenged anyone to provide proof that he ever said that
They were supposedly private comments, he could well have said them and there'd be no proof, as even if he did he'd deny it and say the accounts of others are wrong. If they'd said he wanted to kill every immigrant he found, there's be no way to prove it either. So both sides are free to say whatever they like without fear of consequence. I don't see why you are allowed to take his word on his comments as a true account, but others cannot take another account as true, we have no way of knowing which is right, so you don't support his comments, you support his spokespersons spinning of whatever it was that was said.
That said, saying you are pro immigration would in the mind of most people mean something other than 'wants to limit numbers'. There's no reason you cannot think immigration to a certain level is good but we have too much now, but most people equate pro-immigration as being more than that.
And are we not trusting Sky News now either, I lose track who is not to be trusted as news outlets go.
There are less runners the other way round: a lot less.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The time I spent with Boris, he did seem clueless in many respects, but I did detect a sharp appreciation of where he needed to position himself politically. So personally I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him being able to challenge May by alleging Brexit betrayal, after all.
Once we're out of the EU, we are free to offer EU citizens as liberal terms to travel to, and live in, the UK as we like.
The whole point of the Leave campaign's 'taking back control' and 'Australian style system' is that we, collectively, didn't like.
Superannuation is something we should be taking out of the Aussies' book.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
If so, can we agree he should be booted? He's an embarrassment to the country. Worse than that, he's causing harm.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
Many came to his defence recently after his arselicking of Trump and hypocritical stance on Turkey. But he is pretty much detested now by the whole of the EU, and anyone who voted remain, so he is trying to find a new audience, although I get the sense he is personally very conflicted and uncomfortable in the position he has found himself in.
Nothing wrong with him saying he personally supports free movement, but it is inconsistent with the statements he made in the referendum. So he comes across as the worst kind of insincere opportunist.
In the end this is his first serious job in Politics, he has only otherwise been a backbench MP and mayor of London, and it shows in a big way. He just isn't in the same league as May, Hammond or even David Davis, in my opinion.
Ironically coming across as an insincere opportunist is about as an accurate impression as you are likely to get.
this is all about him getting hung out to dry by May. I have to say it was a brilliant move politically putting him as foreign sec, but it is causing a catastrophe for our foreign relations
The problem with Boris Johnson is he doesn't know what he thinks until he has spoken.
This country is in some very deep and troubling waters and we get the rambling of nefarious Johnson. This is not going to end well as the current government would have trouble organising a drinking session in a brewery. I suspect we are currently experience one of the worst post war governments in terms of drift.
I really regret voting for the Tories in 2015, Miliband and Balls would have been better than this shower of incompetents. Meanwhile the next leader of the free world seems to have taken to one Nigel Farage who probably talks about the type of shower curtains and metallic fittings they want on the extermination chambers.....
The problem with Boris Johnson is he doesn't know what he thinks until he has spoken.
Very well put. Unfortunately, unlike writing an opinion column he can't rehearse two versions of a meeting before deciding which one he wants to have really happened.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The time I spent with Boris, he did seem clueless in many respects, but I did detect a sharp appreciation of where he needed to position himself politically. So personally I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him being able to challenge May by alleging Brexit betrayal, after all.
Once we're out of the EU, we are free to offer EU citizens as liberal terms to travel to, and live in, the UK as we like.
The whole point of the Leave campaign's 'taking back control' and 'Australian style system' is that we, collectively, didn't like.
It's to be able to set our own policy. We could, for example, allow EU citizens to live and work here but not claim benefits.
@SkyNewsBreak: Sky News understands Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has privately told at least four EU ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement
That Boris personally supports it is hardly a revelation, but presumably as Foreign Sec. you're never officially off duty. Boris's behaviour since the referendum has been odd. Has he got carried away with the Trump thing and reckons he can do whatever he likes to no detrimental effect? Was the Gove saga more damaging to his psychology than it first appeared? He seems determined to prove his critics right.
Perhaps he sees future mileage in a conversion to soft brexit - and a way to challenge Theresa May in future - become the standard bearer for a soft brexit in a way that only a leaver can. Being that the tory party is majority soft brexit over hard brexit, perhaps it is a sensible move. He's laying the groundwork now to make the eventual switch more convincing.
That would out-machiavelli Machiavelli and I don't suppose Machiavelli would have offered his back to Gove.
The time I spent with Boris, he did seem clueless in many respects, but I did detect a sharp appreciation of where he needed to position himself politically. So personally I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him being able to challenge May by alleging Brexit betrayal, after all.
I can only judge him from an electorate perspective, and I'm not impressed
Johnson's spokesperson says he is pro immigration but wants to take back control to limit numbers and he did not say he supported freedom of movement and has challenged anyone to provide proof that he ever said that
I absolutely support his comments and do not see them as contradictory. Though it is Sky (EU) news reporting the story, no doubt with Faisal Islam and selective recall
I too support the freedom to move to work (not "look for cash work" whilst taking up residence). But Boris comes across as a bungling nincompoop so, if that's his message it has no cut through even if TM supports this kind of back channel stuff, about which I have my doubts. Boris's negotiating technique certainly breaks new ground.
The problem with Boris Johnson is he doesn't know what he thinks until he has spoken.
This country is in some very deep and troubling waters and we get the rambling of nefarious Johnson. This is not going to end well as the current government would have trouble organising a drinking session in a brewery. I suspect we are currently experience one of the worst post war governments in terms of drift.
I really regret voting for the Tories in 2015, Miliband and Balls would have been better than this shower of incompetents. Meanwhile the next leader of the free world seems to have taken to one Nigel Farage who probably talks about the type of shower curtains and metallic fittings they want on the extermination chambers.....
The problem with Boris Johnson is he doesn't know what he thinks until he has spoken.
This country is in some very deep and troubling waters and we get the rambling of nefarious Johnson. This is not going to end well as the current government would have trouble organising a drinking session in a brewery. I suspect we are currently experience one of the worst post war governments in terms of drift.
I really regret voting for the Tories in 2015, Miliband and Balls would have been better than this shower of incompetents. Meanwhile the next leader of the free world seems to have taken to one Nigel Farage who probably talks about the type of shower curtains and metallic fittings they want on the extermination chambers.....
The problem with Boris Johnson is he doesn't know what he thinks until he has spoken.
This country is in some very deep and troubling waters and we get the rambling of nefarious Johnson. This is not going to end well as the current government would have trouble organising a drinking session in a brewery. I suspect we are currently experience one of the worst post war governments in terms of drift.
I really regret voting for the Tories in 2015, Miliband and Balls would have been better than this shower of incompetents. Meanwhile the next leader of the free world seems to have taken to one Nigel Farage who probably talks about the type of shower curtains and metallic fittings they want on the extermination chambers.....
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
I would guess that opinions on Boris don't vary too much between Brexiters and remoaners
Many came to his defence recently after his arselicking of Trump and hypocritical stance on Turkey. But he is pretty much detested now by the whole of the EU, and anyone who voted remain, so he is trying to find a new audience, although I get the sense he is personally very conflicted and uncomfortable in the position he has found himself in.
Nothing wrong with him saying he personally supports free movement, but it is inconsistent with the statements he made in the referendum. So he comes across as the worst kind of insincere opportunist.
In the end this is his first serious job in Politics, he has only otherwise been a backbench MP and mayor of London, and it shows in a big way. He just isn't in the same league as May, Hammond or even David Davis, in my opinion.
Ironically coming across as an insincere opportunist is about as an accurate impression as you are likely to get.
this is all about him getting hung out to dry by May. I have to say it was a brilliant move politically putting him as foreign sec, but it is causing a catastrophe for our foreign relations
May puts her career first. Having Boris as foreign secretary helps her. It doesn't help the country. It's exactly the same with Fox and Davis. They bring no value whatsoever to the table.
Boris Johnson is a third rate politician. He continually miscalculates and by all accounts is confuses work colleagues i.e. other Foreign Ministers as mates rather than rivals to the British national interest.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
LEAVE 52% Hillary REMAIN 48%
Yes, Nefarious Johnson and Farage conned a lot of people. This is why most post war governments have never invested time in referenda. The economy and specifically the vulnerable are going to suffer. If that makes me a REMOANER then so be it. The BREXIT politicians have been given all the key jobs and have got nowhere. After another six months of drift and vacillation blaming everybody but themselves I hope they get given the order of the boot!
@chrisshipitv: Reliable source tells me Boris did tell these EU Ambassadors that day that the UK *will* be leaving the single market AND the customs union
The problem with Boris Johnson is he doesn't know what he thinks until he has spoken.
This country is in some very deep and troubling waters and we get the rambling of nefarious Johnson. This is not going to end well as the current government would have trouble organising a drinking session in a brewery. I suspect we are currently experience one of the worst post war governments in terms of drift.
I really regret voting for the Tories in 2015, Miliband and Balls would have been better than this shower of incompetents. Meanwhile the next leader of the free world seems to have taken to one Nigel Farage who probably talks about the type of shower curtains and metallic fittings they want on the extermination chambers.....
Top quality trolling
You were the shyest of shy Tories in 2015
But I stayed up till 8 am on Election Night, mostly laughing when all the Labour bigwigs lost their seats!
Comments
If we wait for them, we may never do it. Instead, we need to plan to use the best technology we currently have, which will probably be a mega-boring, mega-expensive high-voltage DC transmission system.
As for imperialism and racist views of the past, it's important to not make gods of men, but also not to make devils - most people in most places were pretty openly racist not that long ago either, and if we act as though there is no worth in anything done by people or nations when they were more shitty than now, that would clearly be an error. We've clearly made progress, as the racist feel the need to explain they are not racist as they know racism is wrong, but people from more institutionally racist times, and more simplistic political times, do not mean there was no good from either, or that even if it was indeed not the sort of thing we would consider right and proper today, that it was egregiously terrible as a product of the time. Making more of a situation means a risk of learning the wrong lessons from history as much as pretending a golden age means no lessons are learned at all.
I very much enjoy history the further back you go, as people generally let themselves get lost in the amazing tales and incredible individuals, with less fretting that said people and cultures were probably arseholes.
A charity single in memory of murdered MP Jo Cox could be number one at Christmas.
I expect Zac to scrape home, but to no purpose. HR5 is going ahead and he is irrelevant. Expanding the PLDP by 12.5% would be much mre useful to the nation.
On your second paragraph, one example I'll give is Orwell. I think Orwell's critiques of communism/authoritarian dictatorships were excellent. I can't praise Orwell the person however, with his anti-semitic, anti-feminist, and racist views on certain things. I suppose people would say he is a product of his time, but I think that people, whether they are aware or not actively choose to believe in the things they believe. You don't have to subscribe to anti-semitic views, you can question the environment you are brought up in.
I think the problem is, is that too often we make 'gods of men' (or indeed, goddesses of women) when such individuals have complex, or undesirable aspects of their character. There is also a resistance to revising our views of certain historical figures, in light of how our own sense of right and wrong has changed.
Depends. If it was collected for the purpose of electing Zac in the 1st place, then it would be being used for the intended purpose.
By my reckoning this would result in the Tories winning between 48.8% - 51.8% of the vote with the LibDems winning between 42.2% - 39.2%. A Tory win therefore by between 6.6% and 12.6% of the votes cast.
Based on a 50% turnout of the circa 78,000 electors in the constituency, the foregoing percentages would result in a Tory majority of between 2,600 and 4,900.
In any case, I doubt the party would risk breaching the law or regulation for a constituency that should be comfortable if they don't split the vote, i just think quibbling that he is a conservative backed by conservatives, and that this is meaningfully distinct from being the Tory candidate.
On topic, it's about getting the maximum tactical vote. End of.
The Daily Telegraph reports that:
"Undercover sting reveals 80 per cent of RAC patrols told customers with 'good' flat batteries they needed new ones"
But I thought the RAC patrol man was supposed to be a "very, very nice man" .... although now I come to think of it, I believe that was said instead of the man from the AA.
The Bank of England says its supplier is working on "potential solutions" to the issue of animal fat in its new £5 notes.
So that's all good then.
As others have pointed out they desperately need to win here so they may as well just throw the kitchen sink and anything else at the task.
I wonder if the problem will actually be for goldsmith in getting out the vote. If his challenger is also anti heathrow expansion and you are pissed off about Brexit (As you probably are living in 70% remain Richmond) why bother turning up to vote? What are you going to lose if you don't vote?
I can't work out what sort of kamikaze strategy (maybe strategy is too flattering) labour are playing here. Split the anti tory vote and then let back in the incumbent, by claiming that you will enact the same policy as the lib dems (opposing Brexit) even though you are the official opposition and it is not actually your party's policy.
Candidate wins but later defects to say Labour.
Would it be legal ore ethical to use those canvass returns (presumably stored on computer media) to help the now Labour candidate to be re-elected?
OK now substitute Independent for Labour.
An alert resident alive to whatever the Zac canvassers who are out door-knocking have on their clipboards, and what they appear already to know about the voter, would provide some interesting clues.
Edit/ and no, the disclaimer on the data almost certainly qualifies its use as for the Conservative party, so it would be illegal to take this data away and use it for someone or something else.
The full story on johnson
"Johnson has no credibility with the ambassadors - they don't care what he says," he said.
(from the sky news article). Sounds like Boris is just out of his depth again and being a clown as usual.
But that's going on their public image, so it might well be wrong.
It is pretty obvious Johnson was just after Cameron's job in the referendum and so courted those who one day may deliver that aspiration. Like all politicians he will never give up the aspiration of becoming PM whilst his body and mind can take the strain.
Again, through Johnsons miscalculation Millions of Briton's are going to be worse off due to something they never voted in favour of being delivered by a PM with no mandate. Johnson and Co lied about NHS funding etc despite the protestations of the nefarious Johnson during the campaign saying it was scare stories. We have now been on the receiving end of a doomsday budget - You leavers feeling good now? Johnson and co incompetently wield power and nothing can be done to replace this failing government.
He's an embarrassment to the country. Worse than that, he's causing harm.
I absolutely support his comments and do not see them as contradictory. Though it is Sky (EU) news reporting the story, no doubt with Faisal Islam and selective recall
Nothing wrong with him saying he personally supports free movement, but it is inconsistent with the statements he made in the referendum. So he comes across as the worst kind of insincere opportunist.
In the end this is his first serious job in Politics, he has only otherwise been a backbench MP and mayor of London, and it shows in a big way. He just isn't in the same league as May, Hammond or even David Davis, in my opinion.
That said, saying you are pro immigration would in the mind of most people mean something other than 'wants to limit numbers'. There's no reason you cannot think immigration to a certain level is good but we have too much now, but most people equate pro-immigration as being more than that.
And are we not trusting Sky News now either, I lose track who is not to be trusted as news outlets go.
And is he actually causing harm? The prosecco comment is just Boris being Boris, no? And as with much of what Boris says, it seems like me to be that he gets the host of what most of the public are thinking. And often not far from reality either. I.e. we're a strong export market...
HillaryREMAIN 48%This country is in some very deep and troubling waters and we get the rambling of nefarious Johnson. This is not going to end well as the current government would have trouble organising a drinking session in a brewery. I suspect we are currently experience one of the worst post war governments in terms of drift.
I really regret voting for the Tories in 2015, Miliband and Balls would have been better than this shower of incompetents. Meanwhile the next leader of the free world seems to have taken to one Nigel Farage who probably talks about the type of shower curtains and metallic fittings they want on the extermination chambers.....