Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Stoke Central’s down to whether BREXIT’s a big enough issue fo

SystemSystem Posts: 11,699
edited February 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Stoke Central’s down to whether BREXIT’s a big enough issue for ordinary voters to come out an give LAB a kicking

The following is a great series of Tweet’s on Stoke Central by the FT’s Sebastian Payne

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    That seems a plausible summary, though of course that's not the same as saying it's right! (With the exeption of Farage's comment - Labour can't be caught off-guard if they're throwing huge resources in). The Heywood comparison might be more the result?

    However, if Labour is giving it this much effort then (1) they should be a good bit shorter than evens, and (2) does it mean they've written Copeland off for practical purposes of resource allocation?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    There I was on the old thread like a fool....
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    edited February 2017
    On #6, I hope the good Doctor has his rental situation sorted in good time. :smiley:
  • Options
    Morning all.

    Quick round-up of last night’s vote on the Brexit Bill and everyone’s favourite speaker.

    1st amendment. - The House of Commons opposed a Labour amendment to the Brexit bill that would have forced May to make regular reports back to parliament every two months by 333 to 284. Government majority 49.

    2nd amendment- Labour calling for the leaders of the devolved administrations to be consulted and have their views taken into account before any final Brexit deal also failed by 333 votes to 276. Government majority of 57.

    3rd amendment - Plaid Cymru amendment that would have required the Government to report to Welsh Assembly on effect on Welsh finances of Brexit, defeated by 330 to 267.
    Government majority 63

    The Speaker for the House of Lords was not consulted before Bercow’s student rant yesterday and will be having a chat with him, later this morning, presumably without coffee.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    There I was on the old thread like a fool....

    That sounds like a bad first line to a limerick.
  • Options

    Morning all.

    Quick round-up of last night’s vote on the Brexit Bill and everyone’s favourite speaker.

    1st amendment. - The House of Commons opposed a Labour amendment to the Brexit bill that would have forced May to make regular reports back to parliament every two months by 333 to 284. Government majority 49.

    2nd amendment- Labour calling for the leaders of the devolved administrations to be consulted and have their views taken into account before any final Brexit deal also failed by 333 votes to 276. Government majority of 57.

    3rd amendment - Plaid Cymru amendment that would have required the Government to report to Welsh Assembly on effect on Welsh finances of Brexit, defeated by 330 to 267.
    Government majority 63

    The Speaker for the House of Lords was not consulted before Bercow’s student rant yesterday and will be having a chat with him, later this morning, presumably without coffee.

    Government majority held up well. Mr Bercow might like to reflect on his effusive welcome to the President of China:

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speeches/speeches/speakers-speech-president-xi-jinpings-address-to-parliament/

    On topic, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Labour brand trumps the Corbyn catastrophe in Stoke......
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955
    edited February 2017
    Sounds like a pretty comfortable hold is incoming. For all the corbyn woes, enough people in the party are motivated to get off their butts to avoid electoral embarrassment, and stoke (get it!?) a fire under local support.

    I can see it was gone over plenty yesterday, but for what it's worth my initial reaction to bercows statement was that initially it sounded reasonable, it wasn't up to him to invite trump to the uk but it's not up to the pm to invite someone to speak in Westminster hall, but that for all I dislike trump and am discouraged by May, the implications of such an avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker. Nice eyes to see or ears to hear but that the house directs him perhaps, but it seems an unnecessary complication with his office.

    But then bercow can be a bit false at Hines - his excuse for trying to hire someone unsuited to the role of clerk was he was t allowed to split the two aspects of the job -which may well have been a good idea - for which he apparently saw no recourse other than hiring someone unable to do both aspects rather than find so done who could.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.

    The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4196814/Donald-Trump-faces-BANNED-speaking-Parliament.html

    However ghastly Trump is he - and his country - is not remotely in the same league as some of these.....

    In any case, I doubt Trump wants to speak to Parliament (neither Reagan nor Bush did) - what he wants is bling - and the Royals have that by the shovel load......
  • Options
    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955

    RobD said:

    There I was on the old thread like a fool....

    That sounds like a bad first line to a limerick.
    Why stop at one bad line...

    'Twas on the old thread like a fool
    With bad posts that made me a tool
    Had pushed all my luck
    Got mad and said f*ck
    Mods warn it's not nice to be cruel

    Not sure about the last line, but I'm pretty happy for that at 5.30am
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    There I was on the old thread like a fool....

    That sounds like a bad first line to a limerick.
    Why stop at one bad line...

    'Twas on the old thread like a fool
    With bad posts that made me a tool
    Had pushed all my luck
    Got mad and said f*ck
    Mods warn it's not nice to be cruel

    Not sure about the last line, but I'm pretty happy for that at 5.30am
    Bravo, Sir!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,783

    kle4 said:

    than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.

    The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers......
    Going back to the 1970s, apparently. I'd no idea he'd been Speaker for so long.

  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.

    The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers......
    Going back to the 1970s, apparently. I'd no idea he'd been Speaker for so long.

    Leaders of countries, seen as having backward laws - including Sharia Law - and issues with human rights, have been welcomed by the British governments in the past. And at least three controversial figures were allowed to address parliament by Mr Bercow himself.

  • Options
    BBC's lead story in politics:

    Speaker John Bercow criticised over Donald Trump comments

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38889941
  • Options
    tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,548
    On topic how on earth is Stoke Central 72nd on UKIP's target list? This is their Richmond Park - nothing short of a win will do. You don't get to pick and choose by-elections and this sounds defeatist already.

    Off-topic, still got a big smile on my face thanks to John Bercow, but he should have said he was reflecting the overall will of the house rather than launching into reasons why. He may well have taken the criticism himself rather than face a difficult and divisive vote on the issue in the house - would be a perfect opposition day debate - or maybe it is just about him in the limelight, don't really care!
  • Options
    Nigel Farage being in the news, for whatever reason, is likely to be good for UKIP.
  • Options
    The UK could shake off the near-term impact of Brexit to become the fastest-growing economy in the G7 group of rich countries between now and 2050, according to a report that paints a bright outlook for the country’s prospects outside the EU.

    Consultants PwC say the UK economy will not escape entirely unscathed from the decision to leave the bloc and that it will dampen growth prospects in the short term. But the brunt of the impact would be felt by 2020 and in the years that follow the UK would outperform its peers thanks to its relatively large working age population and its flexible economy.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/uk-g7-economy-trade-pwc-brexit-us
  • Options
    A majority of Britons approve of the government's approach to leaving the European Union, a poll indicated on Monday, in a boost to Prime Minister Theresa May after she laid out her priorities for negotiations......

    The proportion of the public that approve of the government's preparations for Brexit stood at 53 percent, ORB found, up 15 points from a poll last month when only 38 percent approved, with 62 percent disapproving.

    The poll also found that 47 percent agreed that May would get the right deal for Britain, with just 29 percent disagreeing. In January, it was evenly split at 35 percent between those who agreed and disagreed.


    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poll-idUKKBN15L1ZE
  • Options
    AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited February 2017
    Ms Vance, can't think why Scott&Paste didn't share those little gems with his usual alacrity.

    Incidentally isn't the Speaker in the HoL, Lord (Norman) Fowler, not someone normal known for suffering fools gladly, should be a interesting meeting with Bercow.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763

    The UK could shake off the near-term impact of Brexit to become the fastest-growing economy in the G7 group of rich countries between now and 2050, according to a report that paints a bright outlook for the country’s prospects outside the EU.

    Consultants PwC say the UK economy will not escape entirely unscathed from the decision to leave the bloc and that it will dampen growth prospects in the short term. But the brunt of the impact would be felt by 2020 and in the years that follow the UK would outperform its peers thanks to its relatively large working age population and its flexible economy.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/uk-g7-economy-trade-pwc-brexit-us

    "could"

    werent these the muppets who claimed we'd fall off a cliff if Brexit happened

    theyre simply trying to ingratiate themselves with thge new govt
  • Options
    Daisley:

    Hillary Clinton was the civilised candidate. It was so obvious that few of us entertained the possibility of President Trump. Life in the rural rustbelt seldom detains our thoughts. We expected them to vote the way we would — the correct way.

    It’s hard to believe 55-year-old car welders weren’t rallied to the cause of transgender bathrooms. Indeed, the 2016 Democrat platform contained almost five times as many references to LGBT rights as to coal and steel communities combined. As a cheerful claimant to one-quarter of that acronym, standing up to bigotry matters to me but so does restoring jobs and dignity to depressed neighbourhoods. Those of us who live in big cities order our priorities accordingly but open-mindedness must extend to those whose values are different. Politics is about building coalitions, not saving souls.

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.


    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/02/06/its-time-for-real-liberals-not-ones-with-lazy-protest-slogans-to-stand-up/
  • Options
    AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

  • Options

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
  • Options

    The UK could shake off the near-term impact of Brexit to become the fastest-growing economy in the G7 group of rich countries between now and 2050, according to a report that paints a bright outlook for the country’s prospects outside the EU.

    Consultants PwC say the UK economy will not escape entirely unscathed from the decision to leave the bloc and that it will dampen growth prospects in the short term. But the brunt of the impact would be felt by 2020 and in the years that follow the UK would outperform its peers thanks to its relatively large working age population and its flexible economy.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/uk-g7-economy-trade-pwc-brexit-us

    "could"

    werent these the muppets who claimed we'd fall off a cliff if Brexit happened

    theyre simply trying to ingratiate themselves with thge new govt
    They can't be looking for business from the French govt:

    They see the UK economy remaining in the top 10, slipping down one spot from ninth place now to 10th in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.....France is forecast to drop out of the top 10, to 12th place in 2050, while Germany is forecast to fall from fifth place to ninth.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,334

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    More like an irregular verb, surely?

    I categorise people according to their skin colour*
    You are a racist
    He is a white supremacist.

    *Sadly this is still all too true of many who spent years fighting against racism.
  • Options

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
  • Options

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    2018 ... your grammar needs a brush-up?
  • Options

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
  • Options

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
    He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Berkoff (for that is how his name is supposed to be pronounced) should F..k off. He is a disgrace. His Excellency President Trump is the democratically elected head of state of the UK's biggest and closest ally; insulting him is abominable behaviour.
  • Options

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361
    On topic have most, pretty much all on here not had this down as a safe and easy hold from the start? UKIP really don't do well at FPTP elections, they have too low a ceiling and are too divisive. It is also not obvious what their point is at the moment. This may change if the government contrives a soft Brexit but at the moment they seem to have very little to add.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,399

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,334
    DavidL said:

    On topic have most, pretty much all on here not had this down as a safe and easy hold from the start? UKIP really don't do well at FPTP elections, they have too low a ceiling and are too divisive. It is also not obvious what their point is at the moment. This may change if the government contrives a soft Brexit but at the moment they seem to have very little to add.

    Yes - the expectations management has been dreadful. If Labour hold Stoke, even if they lose Copeland that will still be held as a plus for Corbyn even though the loss of any safe seat to the government in a by-election should be terminal for him.

    Incidentally the phone call has come and the inspectors are in from 9am. So if anybody who likes me could keep their fingers crossed and Mr Eagles and Mr Wisemann could refrain from sticking pins in their wax models of me for the next couple of days, I would be most grateful.

    Hopefully, see you on the other side!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited February 2017

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    The self-righteous b..tches on the Labour benches (Lady Nugee, Harridan Harperson, Diane Abbott et al) deserve to be put down.

    On topic, I would dearly like UKIP to win Stoke Central, but I really don't expect it to do so.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic have most, pretty much all on here not had this down as a safe and easy hold from the start? UKIP really don't do well at FPTP elections, they have too low a ceiling and are too divisive. It is also not obvious what their point is at the moment. This may change if the government contrives a soft Brexit but at the moment they seem to have very little to add.

    Yes - the expectations management has been dreadful. If Labour hold Stoke, even if they lose Copeland that will still be held as a plus for Corbyn even though the loss of any safe seat to the government in a by-election should be terminal for him.

    Incidentally the phone call has come and the inspectors are in from 9am. So if anybody who likes me could keep their fingers crossed and Mr Eagles and Mr Wisemann could refrain from sticking pins in their wax models of me for the next couple of days, I would be most grateful.

    Hopefully, see you on the other side!
    Good luck.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
    My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.

    She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    Caught up in the moment and the petty jibe culture of questions in the house no doubt. That said, while it was a petty jibe to refer to thornberry by a name she doesn't like to go by, clearly, it was thornwood who framed it in terms of being called by her husbands name, which could be said, playing devils advocate, to be criticising those who do take their husbands name, like may.

    Ultimately May was being petty at thornberry, who then overreacted, looking a bit precious, so may went petty again.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    edited February 2017

    TOPPING said:

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
    My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.

    She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
    Have they asked if she knows a certain Sean T? :smiley:
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Nigel Farage being in the news, for whatever reason, is likely to be good for UKIP.

    Tis said that there is no such thing as bad publicity!

    I am predicting a fairly comfortable Labour win, with UKIP on less than 20% of the vote. There used to be a significant BNP vote in the constituency, so I think UKIP has a high floor, but low ceiling. When I looked at the 2015 GE results that was the pattern, with UKIP in the high teens in many seats, low twenties in a significant number, but very few close to the threshold for FPTP victory. UKIP have their fervent supporters, but remain a marmite party.

    Doc Nuttal in his country tweeds looks very alien in Stoke.

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic have most, pretty much all on here not had this down as a safe and easy hold from the start? UKIP really don't do well at FPTP elections, they have too low a ceiling and are too divisive. It is also not obvious what their point is at the moment. This may change if the government contrives a soft Brexit but at the moment they seem to have very little to add.

    Yes - the expectations management has been dreadful. If Labour hold Stoke, even if they lose Copeland that will still be held as a plus for Corbyn even though the loss of any safe seat to the government in a by-election should be terminal for him.

    Incidentally the phone call has come and the inspectors are in from 9am. So if anybody who likes me could keep their fingers crossed and Mr Eagles and Mr Wisemann could refrain from sticking pins in their wax models of me for the next couple of days, I would be most grateful.

    Hopefully, see you on the other side!
    Good luck.
    Seconded!
  • Options
    Telegraph, 'undecided'...or.....

    The contents of Mr Bercow’s near-hysterical rant about President Donald Trump’s planned state visit to Britain are unacceptable. So too is the fact that Mr Bercow has grossly exceeded his authority, seemingly believing himself entitled to wade deep into British foreign policy by dint of his office and his bottomless self-importance.

    Mr Bercow has no business making sweeping statements about Britain’s relationship with the world’s leading economic and military power; the conduct of that relationship is a matter for ministers accountable to voters: Theresa May has sensibly chosen to engage with Mr Trump as a critical friend, eschewing the adolescent gesture politics Mr Bercow practises.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/02/06/john-bercow-does-not-speak-britain-just-monstrous-ego/
  • Options
    theakestheakes Posts: 842
    With the very greatest respect to the Tweater.How old is he, how many by elections has he been to, what does he know about Stoke on Trent. It looks as if he came with a pre arranged agenda, formed from a long way away. I have been to by elections since 1964, I live in the area, his assessment seems to me to be as wrong as that commentatot who went to Norwaich North for a day and came back telling the world the Greens wre going to do extreemely well. They came 5th. Who did he visit, who did he talk to, where did he go, was it just two party headquarters, I think we need to know a lot more. One could ask Mike why we pay such credence to all this.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361

    TOPPING said:

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
    My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.

    She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
    Your friend is not really trying to match Sean T is he? Presumably not in the never kiss a Tory brigade.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    :)
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763

    Nigel Farage being in the news, for whatever reason, is likely to be good for UKIP.

    Tis said that there is no such thing as bad publicity!

    I am predicting a fairly comfortable Labour win, with UKIP on less than 20% of the vote. There used to be a significant BNP vote in the constituency, so I think UKIP has a high floor, but low ceiling. When I looked at the 2015 GE results that was the pattern, with UKIP in the high teens in many seats, low twenties in a significant number, but very few close to the threshold for FPTP victory. UKIP have their fervent supporters, but remain a marmite party.

    Doc Nuttal in his country tweeds looks very alien in Stoke.

    maybe he;s auditioning to be the new Dr Who
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955
    edited February 2017
    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    I don't have my copy of erskine May to hand, but there are times members are referred to by title, usually leader of the opposition, shadow x and so on, but perhaps those who are entities to a, er, title can go by that too? Could Douglas Hogg have been called viscount hailsham in the chamber? On the basis the lords have to use such as they don't have constituencies, nor does their title name necessarily match their surname, so those with a title in the commons could too?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    TOPPING said:

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
    My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.

    She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
    Perhaps your friend could get her interested in council byelection results, as it is a Thursday date...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361
    theakes said:

    With the very greatest respect to the Tweater.How old is he, how many by elections has he been to, what does he know about Stoke on Trent. It looks as if he came with a pre arranged agenda, formed from a long way away. I have been to by elections since 1964, I live in the area, his assessment seems to me to be as wrong as that commentatot who went to Norwaich North for a day and came back telling the world the Greens wre going to do extreemely well. They came 5th. Who did he visit, who did he talk to, where did he go, was it just two party headquarters, I think we need to know a lot more. One could ask Mike why we pay such credence to all this.

    Are you saying he's wrong?
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    Nonsense - her 'ladyship' deserved it and there were plenty laughing on both sides of the house. Unlike Bercow who only got half the house clapping his self-indulgent little rant which demeaned the office he holds.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    I think 2017 has already moved onto Nazi - it's the N-word for anyone who doesn't vote Lefty.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    Yes, the speaker clarified that the proper form of address is by constituency or job title.

    May was responding to Thornberry's heckle, and heckled back.

    I'm not sure Thornberry expressed her point of order as felicitously as she might have wished:

    for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-02-06/debates/800ae29b-2bdf-46e7-94d6-0a2cf60317b7/CommonsChamber
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
    He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
    He's a prat covers it pretty well...

    The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    Yes, the speaker clarified that the proper form of address is by constituency or job title.

    May was responding to Thornberry's heckle, and heckled back.

    I'm not sure Thornberry expressed her point of order as felicitously as she might have wished:

    for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-02-06/debates/800ae29b-2bdf-46e7-94d6-0a2cf60317b7/CommonsChamber
    In fairness that is quite hard to disagree with.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
    My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.

    She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
    Your friend is not really trying to match Sean T is he? Presumably not in the never kiss a Tory brigade.
    She's a Manchester United fan which might be a deal breaker.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    Yes, the speaker clarified that the proper form of address is by constituency or job title.

    May was responding to Thornberry's heckle, and heckled back.

    I'm not sure Thornberry expressed her point of order as felicitously as she might have wished:

    for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-02-06/debates/800ae29b-2bdf-46e7-94d6-0a2cf60317b7/CommonsChamber
    I rather liked her response!

  • Options

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    I thoroughly enjoyed May calling her Lady Nugee.

    Delicious.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955
    edited February 2017
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
    He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
    He's a prat covers it pretty well...

    The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine
    Do we know if he was going to be invited to address parliament or not? I could easily see him not wanting too until this very moment.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    Yes, the speaker clarified that the proper form of address is by constituency or job title.

    May was responding to Thornberry's heckle, and heckled back.

    I'm not sure Thornberry expressed her point of order as felicitously as she might have wished:

    for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-02-06/debates/800ae29b-2bdf-46e7-94d6-0a2cf60317b7/CommonsChamber
    Not a bad rejoinder in truth. Seems to me they gave as good as they got in the bearpit that is the commons and will be rather content.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
    My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.

    She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
    Your friend is not really trying to match Sean T is he? Presumably not in the never kiss a Tory brigade.
    She's a Manchester United fan which might be a deal breaker.
    Well at least your friend can give her plenty to laugh about.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
    He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
    He's a prat covers it pretty well...

    The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine
    It would be popcorn time. Trump does rallies in front of tame audiences, not speeches. His Inaugeration address showed how inarticulate he is.

    Perhaps #twitler could tweet it in...
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
    He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
    The correct response would be to wait for a better opportunity over which to make capital from a Bercow screw up and then let the backbenchers off the leash to express their loss of confidence in him, with regret but with firmness.
  • Options

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    I thoroughly enjoyed May calling her Lady Nugee.

    Delicious.
    It was naughty - but Thornberry's got that smug 'do you know who I am?' air to her that deserves to be taken down a peg or two......and for Labour MPs who have spent decades referring to a former Prime Minister by her husband's name it is more than a bit rich.....now everybody knows how to push Lady Nugee's buttons.....
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited February 2017
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    I don't have my copy of erskine May to hand, but there are times members are referred to by title, usually leader of the opposition, shadow x and so on, but perhaps those who are entities to a, er, title can go by that too? Could Douglas Hogg have been called viscount hailsham in the chamber? On the basis the lords have to use such as they don't have constituencies, nor does their title name necessarily match their surname, so those with a title in the commons could too?
    He's no longer Douglas Hogg, but Douglas Hailsham (or that's what he calls himself)
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    Caught up in the moment and the petty jibe culture of questions in the house no doubt. That said, while it was a petty jibe to refer to thornberry by a name she doesn't like to go by, clearly, it was thornwood who framed it in terms of being called by her husbands name, which could be said, playing devils advocate, to be criticising those who do take their husbands name, like may.

    Ultimately May was being petty at thornberry, who then overreacted, looking a bit precious, so may went petty again.

    Clearly Thornberry had got under Mrs May's skin to elicit such a response. It was much more David Cameron JCR than Mrs Thatcher Iron Lady. A Daily Mail crowd-pleaser which shows just how brittle the PM is.

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
    My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.

    She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
    Your friend is not really trying to match Sean T is he? Presumably not in the never kiss a Tory brigade.
    She's a Manchester United fan which might be a deal breaker.
    Well at least your friend can give her plenty to laugh about.
    On Sunday Leicester were very poor, but United are looking a much better team than last year. I think they will make top four.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    daodao said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    The self-righteous b..tches on the Labour benches (Lady Nugee, Harridan Harperson, Diane Abbott et al) deserve to be put down.

    On topic, I would dearly like UKIP to win Stoke Central, but I really don't expect it to do so.
    I hope you aren't speaking as a vet?

    For UKIP to win the by-election, it will require lots of Tories to lend them their vote. With satisfaction ratings for Mrs May so high, I just don't think anywhere near enough will be inclined to send her such a snub.

    If there is to be a surprise in Stoke, it might just be the Tory vote holding up very well.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
    He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
    He's a prat covers it pretty well...

    The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine
    It would be popcorn time. Trump does rallies in front of tame audiences, not speeches. His Inaugeration address showed how inarticulate he is.

    Perhaps #twitler could tweet it in...
    I didn't think his inauguration speech was inarticulate. I found it a bit shocking as he doubled down on various apparently off the cuff comments in his election campaign and showed he really meant it. It was as far from a unity speech as I have ever heard on such an occasion but I wouldn't call it inarticulate.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    On topic have most, pretty much all on here not had this down as a safe and easy hold from the start? UKIP really don't do well at FPTP elections, they have too low a ceiling and are too divisive. It is also not obvious what their point is at the moment. This may change if the government contrives a soft Brexit but at the moment they seem to have very little to add.

    I'm not convinced that it'll be a 'safe' or 'comfortable' hold (though it might), and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a UKIP win but I'd make them probably a touch short of 2/1 rather than evens.

    As for the point of UKIP (beyond hard-core Eurosceptics), it's exactly the same as the point of the Lib Dems, other than it's for a different audience: a protest vehicle against the main parties.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Sounds like a pretty comfortable hold is incoming. For all the corbyn woes, enough people in the party are motivated to get off their butts to avoid electoral embarrassment, and stoke (get it!?) a fire under local support.

    I can see it was gone over plenty yesterday, but for what it's worth my initial reaction to bercows statement was that initially it sounded reasonable, it wasn't up to him to invite trump to the uk but it's not up to the pm to invite someone to speak in Westminster hall, but that for all I dislike trump and am discouraged by May, the implications of such an avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker. Nice eyes to see or ears to hear but that the house directs him perhaps, but it seems an unnecessary complication with his office.

    But then bercow can be a bit false at Hines - his excuse for trying to hire someone unsuited to the role of clerk was he was t allowed to split the two aspects of the job -which may well have been a good idea - for which he apparently saw no recourse other than hiring someone unable to do both aspects rather than find so done who could.

    The Tories do not pose an existential risk to Labour, UKIP does. In addition, whether fairly or unfairly within Labour ranks UKIP is seen as a party of the far right that it is important to defeat for that reason alone. All wings of the party are deeply motivated to ensure that UKIP does not get a foothold. Whether it is enough or not remains to be seen.

  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited February 2017
    I see John Bercow is making a fool of himself over Trump. Refusing him is just the sort of thing Trump wants. His supports will love it
  • Options
    Lady Nugee Emily Thornberry's Point of Order:

    Points of Order

    Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.

    The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
    Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker
    Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required. I have the matter in hand. Two points, very simply: first of all, I thank the Prime Minister for what she has just said. Secondly, in so far as there is any uncertainty on this matter, let me dispel that uncertainty. I do so from my own knowledge and on the professional advice of the Clerk. We refer in this Chamber to Members by their constituencies or, if they have a title—for example, shadow Minister—by their title. To refer to them by another name is not the right thing to do. But the Prime Minister has said what she has said, and I thank her for that. We will leave this matter there.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,783

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    I thoroughly enjoyed May calling her Lady Nugee.

    Delicious.
    While I think Thornberry ridiculous, it seemed remarkable petty to me. Almost Bercovian.
  • Options

    I see John Bercow is making a fool of himself over Trump.

    You say that but then I see Piers Morgan criticising Bercow and I think perhaps Bercow is right.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,361

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    *You're
    The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
    Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
    So...

    Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
    My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.

    She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
    Your friend is not really trying to match Sean T is he? Presumably not in the never kiss a Tory brigade.
    She's a Manchester United fan which might be a deal breaker.
    Well at least your friend can give her plenty to laugh about.
    On Sunday Leicester were very poor, but United are looking a much better team than last year. I think they will make top four.
    I thought we were very poor on Sunday for most of the first half. Pogba is seriously off form compared to where he was a month ago and Ibra did almost nothing (except score of course). But Leicester are in trouble. Big trouble.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    I don't have my copy of erskine May to hand, but there are times members are referred to by title, usually leader of the opposition, shadow x and so on, but perhaps those who are entities to a, er, title can go by that too? Could Douglas Hogg have been called viscount hailsham in the chamber? On the basis the lords have to use such as they don't have constituencies, nor does their title name necessarily match their surname, so those with a title in the commons could too?
    He's no longer Douglas Hogg, but Douglas Hailsham (or that's what he calls himself)
    From a sample size of one I recall on tv (I suspect you move in such circles more than I) I imagine that's common behaviour (that is, not unusual, not 'the behaviour of a commoner'), as I heard once my favourite named peer, Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de bliquy Galbraith, second baron Strathclyde, tends to go by tom Strathclyde. And of course there was Michael ancram.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic have most, pretty much all on here not had this down as a safe and easy hold from the start? UKIP really don't do well at FPTP elections, they have too low a ceiling and are too divisive. It is also not obvious what their point is at the moment. This may change if the government contrives a soft Brexit but at the moment they seem to have very little to add.

    Yes - the expectations management has been dreadful. If Labour hold Stoke, even if they lose Copeland that will still be held as a plus for Corbyn even though the loss of any safe seat to the government in a by-election should be terminal for him.

    Incidentally the phone call has come and the inspectors are in from 9am. So if anybody who likes me could keep their fingers crossed and Mr Eagles and Mr Wisemann could refrain from sticking pins in their wax models of me for the next couple of days, I would be most grateful.

    Hopefully, see you on the other side!
    All the best.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
    He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
    He's a prat covers it pretty well...

    The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine

    I can see MPs of all parties not turning up or would the Tories three line whip it. Bercow should not have done what he did - it was genuinely shocking. Parliamentarians, though, have every right not to attend a speech given by a lying narcissist who they believe degrades the office of the President of the United States. Their constituents can then choose to deliver a verdict at the ballot box, if they so wish.

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    One surely must have sympathy with "Lady Nugee", having a title she is lumbered with down to the actions of others.

    Like Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for instance. If only those more capable would offer their services to the Shadow Cabinet, she could be plain Emily again....
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic have most, pretty much all on here not had this down as a safe and easy hold from the start? UKIP really don't do well at FPTP elections, they have too low a ceiling and are too divisive. It is also not obvious what their point is at the moment. This may change if the government contrives a soft Brexit but at the moment they seem to have very little to add.

    Yes - the expectations management has been dreadful. If Labour hold Stoke, even if they lose Copeland that will still be held as a plus for Corbyn even though the loss of any safe seat to the government in a by-election should be terminal for him.

    Incidentally the phone call has come and the inspectors are in from 9am. So if anybody who likes me could keep their fingers crossed and Mr Eagles and Mr Wisemann could refrain from sticking pins in their wax models of me for the next couple of days, I would be most grateful.

    Hopefully, see you on the other side!
    Good luck.

    You'll triumph like Scipio Africanus at Zama.
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Following report on the Vote2012 website from Lib Dem on the ground in Stoke yesterday , lots of leaflets being delivered . One group of Labour canvassers spotted . Very few billboards/posters . Total seen just 4 Labour 3 Lib Dem zero UKIP/Con .
    My feeling is Labour hold fairly comfortably UKIP/Lib Dems fighting for 2nd Con poor 4th . 2 and a bit weeks to go so still time for things to change ,
    For UKIP is this going to be their Waterloo/Stalingrad/Culloden rolled into one ?
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    I see John Bercow is making a fool of himself over Trump.

    You say that but then I see Piers Morgan criticising Bercow and I think perhaps Bercow is right.
    Piers Morgan.. if it concerns you, just think that Clarkson thumped him.. Marvellous and no doubt deserved.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
    He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
    He's a prat covers it pretty well...

    The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine

    I can see MPs of all parties not turning up or would the Tories three line whip it. Bercow should not have done what he did - it was genuinely shocking. Parliamentarians, though, have every right not to attend a speech given by a lying narcissist who they believe degrades the office of the President of the United States. Their constituents can then choose to deliver a verdict at the ballot box, if they so wish.

    Seems a fair approach.
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    Sounds like a pretty comfortable hold is incoming. For all the corbyn woes, enough people in the party are motivated to get off their butts to avoid electoral embarrassment, and stoke (get it!?) a fire under local support.

    I can see it was gone over plenty yesterday, but for what it's worth my initial reaction to bercows statement was that initially it sounded reasonable, it wasn't up to him to invite trump to the uk but it's not up to the pm to invite someone to speak in Westminster hall, but that for all I dislike trump and am discouraged by May, the implications of such an avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker. Nice eyes to see or ears to hear but that the house directs him perhaps, but it seems an unnecessary complication with his office.

    But then bercow can be a bit false at Hines - his excuse for trying to hire someone unsuited to the role of clerk was he was t allowed to split the two aspects of the job -which may well have been a good idea - for which he apparently saw no recourse other than hiring someone unable to do both aspects rather than find so done who could.

    The Tories do not pose an existential risk to Labour, UKIP does. In addition, whether fairly or unfairly within Labour ranks UKIP is seen as a party of the far right that it is important to defeat for that reason alone. All wings of the party are deeply motivated to ensure that UKIP does not get a foothold. Whether it is enough or not remains to be seen.

    Which also implies a willingness to divert resources from Copeland if necessary, even at the cost of losing to the Tories, if the prize is keeping UKIP from winning (or even being close to winning?) Stoke?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955

    One surely must have sympathy with "Lady Nugee", having a title she is lumbered with down to the actions of others.

    Like Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for instance. If only those more capable would offer their services to the Shadow Cabinet, she could be plain Emily again....

    Ooh, that might have been a better jibe for May to have delivered, frankly. Oh well,benefit of hindsight.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,002
    edited February 2017
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: Wehrlein's got a neck injury. Not too severe but he may miss the first test (starts 27 February). Particularly tricky as there are only two ahead of this season.

    Edited extra bit: and it would be useful to include the link, wouldn't it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38887608
  • Options

    I see John Bercow is making a fool of himself over Trump.

    You say that but then I see Piers Morgan criticising Bercow and I think perhaps Bercow is right.
    There will be occasions when Morgan reaches the right conclusion by chance, via the wrong reasoning. This is one such.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,544
    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:


    :
    :

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    I don't have my copy of erskine May to hand, but there are times members are referred to by title, usually leader of the opposition, shadow x and so on, but perhaps those who are entities to a, er, title can go by that too? Could Douglas Hogg have been called viscount hailsham in the chamber? On the basis the lords have to use such as they don't have constituencies, nor does their title name necessarily match their surname, so those with a title in the commons could too?
    He's no longer Douglas Hogg, but Douglas Hailsham (or that's what he calls himself)
    From a sample size of one I recall on tv (I suspect you move in such circles more than I) I imagine that's common behaviour (that is, not unusual, not 'the behaviour of a commoner'), as I heard once my favourite named peer, Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de bliquy Galbraith, second baron Strathclyde, tends to go by tom Strathclyde. And of course there was Michael ancram.
    To fully understand the er... the comment about Lt Colonel Thornberry... well, she has been know to make restaurant reservations under the title that Mrs May used. With MP added at the end.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,120
    Stoke Central is actually 12th on the UKIP target list and Leigh is not in the top 100 so if UKIP don't win Stoke Central they won't win Leigh. On present national polling Labour should hold Stoke with a reduced majority but we will see
    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/ukip
  • Options
    @bbcnickrobinson What makes the Speaker's snub to Trump so extraordinary is that it's a deliberate & very public assault on Prime Minister's foreign policy.
  • Options
    theakestheakes Posts: 842
    Mark Senior: where I was on Sunday only window posters were Lib Dem, two!!!. Days of posters as an indicator seem long gone. I think in the end it will be between Labour and the Lib Dems, simply because of the latters leaflet game.
    Going back to what was his name Sebastian somebody. Just seen him on Sky News. Appears to answer all my earlier questions. What does he really know what people are thinking as they shop, say at Tescos in Trent Vale?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955

    @bbcnickrobinson What makes the Speaker's snub to Trump so extraordinary is that it's a deliberate & very public assault on Prime Minister's foreign policy.

    Didn't his former comrades try to oust bercow shortly before the ge, by trying to change the rules on electing speakers ? Waiting for his moment of revenge, perhaps.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137

    I see John Bercow is making a fool of himself over Trump. Refusing him is just the sort of thing Trump wants. His supports will love it

    It is hard to imagine someone further removed from your rust-belt Trumpsters than this man:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609342/Speaker-John-Bercow-run-half-MILLION-pounds-expenses-including-26-000-formal-dresswear-100-000-overseas-jaunts.html

    (Note: those numbers are 3 years old.)
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,894

    kle4 said:

    than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.

    The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4196814/Donald-Trump-faces-BANNED-speaking-Parliament.html

    However ghastly Trump is he - and his country - is not remotely in the same league as some of these.....

    In any case, I doubt Trump wants to speak to Parliament (neither Reagan nor Bush did) - what he wants is bling - and the Royals have that by the shovel load......
    I think the point is that Trump has personally been shown to be a racist and misogynist which is why Bercow doesn't want him in parliament. Parliament has a plaque where Barack Obama spoke to parliament. It's all about Barack Obama not Mr President.

    It is the person of Trump who's being rejected not his office. The same I'm sure would have applied to the the Chinese leader if he had ever been recorded saying his money entitled him to grab whomever he wished by the pussy and and banned various religeous groups on a whim and then damned his own judiciary for declaring his edicts illegal.
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    Sounds like a pretty comfortable hold is incoming. For all the corbyn woes, enough people in the party are motivated to get off their butts to avoid electoral embarrassment, and stoke (get it!?) a fire under local support.

    I can see it was gone over plenty yesterday, but for what it's worth my initial reaction to bercows statement was that initially it sounded reasonable, it wasn't up to him to invite trump to the uk but it's not up to the pm to invite someone to speak in Westminster hall, but that for all I dislike trump and am discouraged by May, the implications of such an avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker. Nice eyes to see or ears to hear but that the house directs him perhaps, but it seems an unnecessary complication with his office.

    But then bercow can be a bit false at Hines - his excuse for trying to hire someone unsuited to the role of clerk was he was t allowed to split the two aspects of the job -which may well have been a good idea - for which he apparently saw no recourse other than hiring someone unable to do both aspects rather than find so done who could.

    The Tories do not pose an existential risk to Labour, UKIP does. In addition, whether fairly or unfairly within Labour ranks UKIP is seen as a party of the far right that it is important to defeat for that reason alone. All wings of the party are deeply motivated to ensure that UKIP does not get a foothold. Whether it is enough or not remains to be seen.

    Which also implies a willingness to divert resources from Copeland if necessary, even at the cost of losing to the Tories, if the prize is keeping UKIP from winning (or even being close to winning?) Stoke?
    Possibly, although the remoteness of Copeland means the resources heading to Stoke would probably just not have been used at all (e.g. activist base in midlands).
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    I see John Bercow is making a fool of himself over Trump. Refusing him is just the sort of thing Trump wants. His supports will love it

    My timeline is swamped with Bercow's old skeletons and expenses. I knew I disliked him a lot - its clearly not just me.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:


    :
    :

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
    I don't have my copy of erskine May to hand, but there are times members are referred to by title, usually leader of the opposition, shadow x and so on, but perhaps those who are entities to a, er, title can go by that too? Could Douglas Hogg have been called viscount hailsham in the chamber? On the basis the lords have to use such as they don't have constituencies, nor does their title name necessarily match their surname, so those with a title in the commons could too?
    He's no longer Douglas Hogg, but Douglas Hailsham (or that's what he calls himself)
    From a sample size of one I recall on tv (I suspect you move in such circles more than I) I imagine that's common behaviour (that is, not unusual, not 'the behaviour of a commoner'), as I heard once my favourite named peer, Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de bliquy Galbraith, second baron Strathclyde, tends to go by tom Strathclyde. And of course there was Michael ancram.
    To fully understand the er... the comment about Lt Colonel Thornberry... well, she has been know to make restaurant reservations under the title that Mrs May used. With MP added at the end.
    Surely, that is just down to a misunderstanding by one of those unpaid interns Labour has to do things like make dinner reservations? They will be duly fired....
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,120

    daodao said:

    Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:

    This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.

    The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’

    Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.

    This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197990/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-red-mist-come-Speaker-s-chair.html#ixzz4XySvB9oL

    Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
    The self-righteous b..tches on the Labour benches (Lady Nugee, Harridan Harperson, Diane Abbott et al) deserve to be put down.

    On topic, I would dearly like UKIP to win Stoke Central, but I really don't expect it to do so.
    I hope you aren't speaking as a vet?

    For UKIP to win the by-election, it will require lots of Tories to lend them their vote. With satisfaction ratings for Mrs May so high, I just don't think anywhere near enough will be inclined to send her such a snub.

    If there is to be a surprise in Stoke, it might just be the Tory vote holding up very well.
    I have had some UKIP voters switching to the Tories in Copeland to stop Labour, I would expect some Tories will tactically vote UKIP in Stoke too
This discussion has been closed.