politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After Toby Young the focus moves to some of BoJo’s writing abo

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After Toby Young the focus moves to some of BoJo’s writing about women and gay people

Now BoJo's past articles being looked up with comments about 'hot totty' and 'tank-topped bumboys' https://t.co/83fp35KFxO

Read the full story here

RobD

I assume he's referring to PB's last pub meet up?

*gets coat*

JackW

RobD said:

I assume he's referring to PB's last pub meet up?

*gets coat*

I must have missed the pictures of OGH as "hot totty" ??

MikeSmithson

RobD said:

I assume he's referring to PB's last pub meet up?

*gets coat*

I don't think you've ever been to a PB gathering but I can't recall the sort of conversation. Something of a slur

kyf_100

More weight.

Theuniondivvie

So far this week Tobes has had PB Tories glossing over nepotism, defining a tweet that said he had his 'dick up the arse' of the woman beside him as banter, construing his sneering at the working classes as youthful indiscretions and has got them taking another look at the worth of eugenics.

He's been tremendous value for money.

Omnium

MikeSmithson said:

RobD said:

I assume he's referring to PB's last pub meet up?

*gets coat*

I don't think you've ever been to a PB gathering but I can't recall the sort of conversation. Something of a slur

I've never been to a PB gathering either Mike. I do though want to know how you acquired the 'Hot Totty' tag!?

Go on, deny it!

Sandpit

Has there ever been a market where the top five contenders are all obvious lays rather than backs?

saddo

Labour need to because little careful over all this. If Toby Young becomes the scandal standard, most of their front bench will have to go.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

Has there ever been a market where the top five contenders are all obvious lays rather than backs?

There's no answer to that...

Alistair

Theuniondivvie said:

So far this week Tobes has had PB Tories glossing over nepotism, defining a tweet that said he had his 'dick up the arse' of the woman beside him as banter, construing his sneering at the working classes as youthful indiscretions and has got them taking another look at the worth of eugenics.

He's been tremendous value for money.

It's just bantz. He's paid for it you see. That absolves him of all responsibility.

To be honest, it does feel like right wing newspaper columnists and their chums have a bit of a problem with the common people having a platform to answer back these days.

kle4

I wouldn't say people's past words and opinions are irrelevant, but even if the summary is right of the contents I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised enough to get truly outraged. And when we say 'the focus moves to' who decides that? This is the first I've heard of it, has it started, how do they say, trending yet?

ydoethur

saddo said:

Labour need to because little careful over all this. If Toby Young becomes the scandal standard, most of their front bench will have to go.

That's an intriguing post. I would have said it would be all of them. Who are you suggesting would survive?

kle4

saddo said:

Labour need to because little careful over all this. If Toby Young becomes the scandal standard, most of their front bench will have to go.

In politics, whatever your tribe, its one rule for you and one for your enemy. The public might be fickle into what they are willing to let different people, or different parties, get away with, depending on the overall prevailing mood.

MikeSmithson

kle4 said:

I wouldn't say people's past words and opinions are irrelevant, but even if the summary is right of the contents I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised enough to get truly outraged. And when we say 'the focus moves to' who decides that? This is the first I've heard of it, has it started, how do they say, trending yet?

This is the focus in parts of the media.

Omnium

Sandpit said:

Has there ever been a market where the top five contenders are all obvious lays rather than backs?

I'd guess that laying all of the top 5 in most political markets would make money over time. The trouble is that the evidence is almost impossible to collect in that you're effectively backing 100-1 shots. It's even harder to say what laying all of the 5 means - if you do it blindly you'll just lock in a loss.

Casino_Royale

MikeSmithson said:

RobD said:

I assume he's referring to PB's last pub meet up?

*gets coat*

I don't think you've ever been to a PB gathering but I can't recall the sort of conversation. Something of a slur

You didn't overhear the conversation between me and TSE then.

Foxy

Alistair said:

Theuniondivvie said:

So far this week Tobes has had PB Tories glossing over nepotism, defining a tweet that said he had his 'dick up the arse' of the woman beside him as banter, construing his sneering at the working classes as youthful indiscretions and has got them taking another look at the worth of eugenics.

He's been tremendous value for money.

It's just bantz. He's paid for it you see. That absolves him of all responsibility.

To be honest, it does feel like right wing newspaper columnists and their chums have a bit of a problem with the common people having a platform to answer back these days.

By Boris and Toby being excused their "banter", open season has been legitimately declared on them. Sauce for the goose

It is really just a coarsening of political life, blurring the line between shock jouno, and real politicians.

kle4

Liverpool looking clueless and toothless without Coutinho and Salah makes me sad, but looking at the Tory leadership contenders makes the situation seem better - at least they're not all clueless or no hopers.

NickPalmer

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

Casino_Royale

Omnium said:

Sandpit said:

Has there ever been a market where the top five contenders are all obvious lays rather than backs?

I'd guess that laying all of the top 5 in most political markets would make money over time. The trouble is that the evidence is almost impossible to collect in that you're effectively backing 100-1 shots. It's even harder to say what laying all of the 5 means - if you do it blindly you'll just lock in a loss.

I'd be laying at least four of those top five at present odds.

Barnesian

Alistair said:

Theuniondivvie said:

So far this week Tobes has had PB Tories glossing over nepotism, defining a tweet that said he had his 'dick up the arse' of the woman beside him as banter, construing his sneering at the working classes as youthful indiscretions and has got them taking another look at the worth of eugenics.

He's been tremendous value for money.

It's just bantz. He's paid for it you see. That absolves him of all responsibility.

To be honest, it does feel like right wing newspaper columnists and their chums have a bit of a problem with the common people having a platform to answer back these days.

Networks versus hierarchies. It's happened before. Revolution versus the establishment.

There's an interesting book on this subject by Niall Ferguson - "The Square and the Tower"

https://www.ft.com/content/0704c1b4-adc9-11e7-aab9-abaa44b1e130

dr_spyn

JackW said:

RobD said:

I assume he's referring to PB's last pub meet up?

*gets coat*

I must have missed the pictures of OGH as "hot totty" ??

Good to see you posting again.

saddo

ydoethur said:

saddo said:

Labour need to because little careful over all this. If Toby Young becomes the scandal standard, most of their front bench will have to go.

That's an intriguing post. I would have said it would be all of them. Who are you suggesting would survive?

I was being kind.

Omnium

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I think you're being a little disingenuous here Mr P - you like Boris for all of the things that you're saying that he appeals to. I'm sure on balance that you don't approve of him, but the positives that work on everyone else work on you too.

I loved Tony Benn - I thought he was absolutely great. I disagreed with almost all of his thoughts mind you.

Ishmael_Z

Scott_P said:

It's interesting, how much the "had enough of experts" line winds up the Brexiteers

If it was simply a misunderstanding, they would just laugh it off, but they go to bat for it, every time.

Almost like they know how much it poisoned rational debate for a generation.

I am not a Brexiteer.

you don't even claim that what you say is true, you pretty much boast the fact that it's a shitty little lie which you have had a small part in perpetuating. Well done. You must be really, really proud of being you.

Scott_P

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

AndyJS

"‘Porn addict’ Toby Young fights to keep role as student watchdog"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/porn-addict-toby-young-fights-to-keep-role-as-student-watchdog-p8tlktfv0

bigjohnowls

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Foxy

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

Essexit

Ishmael_Z said:

Scott_P said:

It's interesting, how much the "had enough of experts" line winds up the Brexiteers

If it was simply a misunderstanding, they would just laugh it off, but they go to bat for it, every time.

Almost like they know how much it poisoned rational debate for a generation.

I am not a Brexiteer.

you don't even claim that what you say is true, you pretty much boast the fact that it's a shitty little lie which you have had a small part in perpetuating. Well done. You must be really, really proud of being you.

One of the things I like about PB is having heated but polite debates against people with whom I don't agree, but who put their case in an eloquent, intelligent, and original way.

Scott is not one of those people.

Ishmael_Z

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

What?

I voted remain, and I have never doubted that that was the right way to vote. I think in your head you are a master satirist enraging your opponents by the dexterity of your wit, but my being a remainer rather undermines that theory, doesn't it? A satirist is one thing, and an irksome and not overly bright twat is another.

kle4

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

I thought he was sacked for lying about whether he or his lawyers had been informed of various matters relating to that issue at the time, not for lying about having porn on his computer?

Essexit

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

RobD

AndyJS said:

"‘Porn addict’ Toby Young fights to keep role as student watchdog"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/porn-addict-toby-young-fights-to-keep-role-as-student-watchdog-p8tlktfv0

Is he really fighting, or are people just agitating for his removal?

kle4

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

And that matters because? If you say something irritates Brexiteers, and a person is not a Brexiteer but is irritated by it, thus invalidating your point, is that not relevant and to be pointed out?

Omnium

So a little tense in other comments below, but it gave me an idea.

Please feel free to add categories, and better still change the winners. (most recent vote vageuly wins i guess) The only category that need's any explanation is 'Omnium's Brexiteer' which is defined as the greatest gainer from opposing Brexit.

Pavlov's Brexiteer - Theresa May
Schrodinger's Brexiteer - Theresa May
Wagner's Brexiteer - Theresa May with breast-plates
Omnium's Brexiteer - Sir Nicholas Clegg

RobD

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

I thought he was sacked for lying about whether he or his lawyers had been informed of various matters relating to that issue at the time, not for lying about having porn on his computer?

BJO must have read it on the Canary.

FF43

Personally I think peak-Boris happened way back. And not exactly an Everest either. More a dung hill maybe. But his famous charm passed me by, so I may not have my finger on the right pulse ....

Foxy

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Essexit

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Hm, I didn't realise Callaghan didn't actually say "Crisis, what crisis?". Having Googled it and learnt that, I won't be citing it in future arguments.

kle4

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Indeed, and it is right that whether one supports the perceived view of such comments or not, whether it was what was actually said or meant should be clarified.

Including the most famous poor citation when some poor bugger allegedly ordered the tides to turn back.

Charles

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

Sean_F

Who cares?

williamglenn

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

DecrepitJohnL

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

Foxy

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Foxy

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

It is more that Maggies society is used out of context, like Gove's one.

williamglenn

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

It is more that Maggies society is used out of context, like Gove's one.

In Gove's case the context only clarifies the kind of experts people have had enough of, whereas the context of the Thatcher quote gives if a completely different meaning.

Essexit

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

It is more that Maggies society is used out of context, like Gove's one.

It was bad PR for Gove/Maggie to allow the words "people have had enough of experts" / "there's no such thing as society" to even leave their lips in a way that could later be taken out of context, no doubt about it.

That doesn't make it alright for those who ought to know better to reproduce those quotes as if they are accurate representations of what the figures in question said.

Charles

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

And, of course, her attackers don’t care what she was saying: they attack her choice of words instead

kle4

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.

DecrepitJohnL

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

"‘Porn addict’ Toby Young fights to keep role as student watchdog"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/porn-addict-toby-young-fights-to-keep-role-as-student-watchdog-p8tlktfv0

Is he really fighting, or are people just agitating for his removal?

Both, by the look of it. Tbh I did wonder whether he'd only been appointed as a distraction from bad news somewhere else. I do not feel very strongly about it either way but cannot see why the government is wasting capital trying to keep him on board. Even if he is not the devil incarnate suggested by his more hysterical opponents, the best case for him is that he went to university and ran some schools for a bit; there must surely be thousands that could replace him on that basis, and without the suggestion of cronyism.

Sean_F

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

TheScreamingEagles

Like a Virgil, scored on his very first time.

Omnium

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

What's a 'thing'?

What's 'society'?

She's almost certainly right. It doesn't matter a jot. What does matter is the meaning. Should we intrinsically have some sort of rights or expectations? My answer is no, but I want it to be yes.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, Boris is a Selfridges&Co Jared O’Mara.

Reapeth what we soweth.

TheScreamingEagles

If only someone had tipped Hunt as next PM at 100/1.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/949398137243885569

kle4

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

It is more that Maggies society is used out of context, like Gove's one.

It was bad PR for Gove/Maggie to allow the words "people have had enough of experts" / "there's no such thing as society" to even leave their lips in a way that could later be taken out of context, no doubt about it.

That doesn't make it alright for those who ought to know better to reproduce those quotes as if they are accurate representations of what the figures in question said.

Well said. It's not exactly honourable, but you can hardly blame political opponents for making the most out of poorly worded statements, but there is a limit to how far one, in my view, can reasonably attempt to embarrass someone for such a slip by misrepresenting the meaning. It's the reason why most people don't tend to get as outraged by seemingly significant wordings by Corbyn or May or whoever, as media figures and partisans wish they would, I think it is one area where the public are actually more reasonable than the politically engaged in giving people some benefit of the doubt.

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

If only someone had tipped Hunt as next PM at 100/1.

Hammond, Rudd, Johnson and Davis expected to stay in post...

Foxy

Charles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

And, of course, her attackers don’t care what she was saying: they attack her choice of words instead

It resonated as a quote, and entered national consciousness, because it pithily summarised Maggies attitude. Ditto Callaghan's, and Gove's. Sometimes words just resonate with the times.

Brexit is a classic case of "no need of experts". It always was a head vs heart issue.

Foxy

TheScreamingEagles said:

If only someone had tipped Hunt as next PM at 100/1.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/949398137243885569

Great Matt cartoon.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

If only someone had tipped Hunt as next PM at 100/1.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/949398137243885569

I can see why she'd want to delay - it's not the first time he's been in the crosshairs as a regular 'NHS in Crisis' story emerges, and while he's outlasted all the others, maybe its best to wait until that is guaranteed.

That said, if he was moved to Green's old job is it really a promotion? I mean, in terms of running a big department it'd a lateral move wouldn't it, given 'First Secretary of State' or 'Deputy PM' are not roles so essential every government has them, and Green's other formal position was not technically as high as Hunt's?

kle4

Foxy said:

Charles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

And, of course, her attackers don’t care what she was saying: they attack her choice of words instead

It resonated as a quote, and entered national consciousness, because it pithily summarised Maggies attitude. Ditto Callaghan's, and Gove's. Sometimes words just resonate with the times.

Brexit is a classic case of "no need of experts". It always was a head vs heart issue.

Perhaps, but that does not necessarily mean what you think it means, not to everyone. For me, the heart said stick with the EU, the head said it was not worth it.

MarqueeMark

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.

Arguably, not as bad as MPs getting pissed in the Palace of Westminster. At least a w***er's judgment on legislation isn't impaired when they vote.

How many of those utterly outraged by Green were still prepared to think nothing bad of Charles Kennedy "because he clearly had a problem"?

Foxy

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

And, of course, her attackers don’t care what she was saying: they attack her choice of words instead

It resonated as a quote, and entered national consciousness, because it pithily summarised Maggies attitude. Ditto Callaghan's, and Gove's. Sometimes words just resonate with the times.

Brexit is a classic case of "no need of experts". It always was a head vs heart issue.

Perhaps, but that does not necessarily mean what you think it means, not to everyone. For me, the heart said stick with the EU, the head said it was not worth it.

And for some of us head and heart were on the same side, but the Brexit zeitgeist, and indeed the Corbynite one too, is one that wants to ignore the experts, and go with gut instinct. No amount of argument works in those circumstances.

Foxy

MarqueeMark said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.

Arguably, not as bad as MPs getting pissed in the Palace of Westminster. At least a w***er's judgment on legislation isn't impaired when they vote.

How many of those utterly outraged by Green were still prepared to think nothing bad of Charles Kennedy "because he clearly had a problem"?

I am not sure if that was meant as a dig at me, but I never called for Green's resignation, or for that of Toby or Boris for that matter.

I would be very happy if all the Parliamentary bars closed.

DavidL

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If only someone had tipped Hunt as next PM at 100/1.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/949398137243885569

Great Matt cartoon.

Superb.

kle4

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If only someone had tipped Hunt as next PM at 100/1.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/949398137243885569

Great Matt cartoon.

High quality indeed.

Sean_F

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Essexit said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Ishmael_Z said:

I am not a Brexiteer.

It's like Pavlov...

If Populism has an agreed definition, then it must be based on a political belief that "experts" are cheating "the people"*.

That is why Gove's comment resonated with the Brexit zeitgeist.

* The People needing the voice of a demogogue to fight for them, whether Farage or Corbyn. Populism is symmetrical.

It resonated with the zeitgeist insofar as Remainers heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what Gove actually meant, and have been running with it ever since, only stopping to call the rest of us 'post-truth'.

Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.

And, of course, her attackers don’t care what she was saying: they attack her choice of words instead

It resonated as a quote, and entered national consciousness, because it pithily summarised Maggies attitude. Ditto Callaghan's, and Gove's. Sometimes words just resonate with the times.

Brexit is a classic case of "no need of experts". It always was a head vs heart issue.

Perhaps, but that does not necessarily mean what you think it means, not to everyone. For me, the heart said stick with the EU, the head said it was not worth it.

And for some of us head and heart were on the same side, but the Brexit zeitgeist, and indeed the Corbynite one too, is one that wants to ignore the experts, and go with gut instinct. No amount of argument works in those circumstances.

I don't think that the experts can give one a good steer on how to vote.

If I want my brain operated on, I'll want a brain surgeon. I won't necessarily follow my brain surgeon's advice on how to vote in the Brexit referendum.

The_Apocalypse

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

dixiedean

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.

Only problem is alcoholism is an addiction. A recognised medical condition. Nobody other than charlatans and those caught out define porn as an addiction. Neither is sex an addiction.
There is nowt wrong with porn or sex imho....but one can't be addicted to either.
One would need to show the withdrawal symptoms. Other than being horny, there aren't any.

Sean_F

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

Jonathan

https://twitter.com/ThePoke/status/949277441532538881

david_herdson

Sandpit said:

Has there ever been a market where the top five contenders are all obvious lays rather than backs?

Presidential candidate markets, early on, frequently.

e.g. Dem, 2020:

Kamela Harris 6/1 (she's possible but she's not *that* likely)
Elizabeth Warren 7/1 (again, possible, but overrated)
Bernie Sanders 10/1 (may not even run, socialist, very old and looks it)
Kirsten Gillibrand 10/1 (another plausible shot but not a front-runner)
Michelle Obama 18/1 (FFS).

david_herdson

On topic, Boris has been a front-line politician now for ten years. What he wrote in his distant past is irrelevant with that kind of record behind him.

Those seeking to undermine him might do better looking at what he's done at the FO.

The_Apocalypse

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

kle4

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.

Only problem is alcoholism is an addiction. A recognised medical condition. Nobody other than charlatans and those caught out define porn as an addiction. Neither is sex an addiction.
There is nowt wrong with porn or sex imho....but one can't be addicted to either.
One would need to show the withdrawal symptoms. Other than being horny, there aren't any.

I've heard JFK would claim to get headaches without regular release, but in all honesty I have no idea whether medically it is accepted as an real addiction or not, so I'd certainly take your word for it. The real point was that even if it was a problem, being honest rather than lying would naturally be better.

Foxy

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.

Only problem is alcoholism is an addiction. A recognised medical condition. Nobody other than charlatans and those caught out define porn as an addiction. Neither is sex an addiction.
There is nowt wrong with porn or sex imho....but one can't be addicted to either.
One would need to show the withdrawal symptoms. Other than being horny, there aren't any.

I would disagree. Physical withdrawal is not a requirement. Addiction includes compulsive behaviour that damages either an individual or the people around them.

kle4

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO.

Might not have at the time, but aren't all Labour supporters Corbynistas now, 'Oh Jeremy' and all that?

Don't see many Mayites thesedays though.

david_herdson

kle4 said:

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.

Only problem is alcoholism is an addiction. A recognised medical condition. Nobody other than charlatans and those caught out define porn as an addiction. Neither is sex an addiction.
There is nowt wrong with porn or sex imho....but one can't be addicted to either.
One would need to show the withdrawal symptoms. Other than being horny, there aren't any.

I've heard JFK would claim to get headaches without regular release, but in all honesty I have no idea whether medically it is accepted as an real addiction or not, so I'd certainly take your word for it. The real point was that even if it was a problem, being honest rather than lying would naturally be better.

Sex can undoubtedly be an addiction, just as much as gambling or other activities that generate temporary highs followed by withdrawal (go on - smirk). It's a different sort of addiction to cigarettes or alcohol, where there is an external chemical component, but anything is an addiction if the addict follows the classic behavioural pattern.

The_Apocalypse

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO.

Might not have at the time, but aren't all Labour supporters Corbynistas now, 'Oh Jeremy' and all that?

Don't see many Mayites thesedays though.

Most probably are - but I doubt that Conservative Remainers that switched to Labour are fully signed up to the Corbynista world view.

Edit: I think CarlottaVance and Mortimer are Mayites.

Sean_F

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO.

Might not have at the time, but aren't all Labour supporters Corbynistas now, 'Oh Jeremy' and all that?

Don't see many Mayites thesedays though.

May's ratings are not that bad, but I think her support is mostly pro-Brexit, anti-Corbyn, rather than enthusiastically pro-May.

Sean_F

The_Apocalypse said:

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO.

Might not have at the time, but aren't all Labour supporters Corbynistas now, 'Oh Jeremy' and all that?

Don't see many Mayites thesedays though.

Most probably are - but I doubt that Conservative Remainers that switched to Labour are fully signed up to the Corbynista world view.

When you switch, you develop the zeal of the convert.

TGOHF

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/emily-thornberry-says-labour-cannot-back-iran-protesters-because-its-unclear-who-has-white-hats_uk_5a4fb78ce4b089e14dba9911




Emily is loyal all the way to the shark jump.

kle4

The_Apocalypse said:

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO.

Might not have at the time, but aren't all Labour supporters Corbynistas now, 'Oh Jeremy' and all that?

Don't see many Mayites thesedays though.

Most probably are - but I doubt that Conservative Remainers that switched to Labour are fully signed up to the Corbynista world view.

I was only kidding really - as you say, it's improbable that such a switch happens. Though I know one person who has done so IRL, but only since the GE remarkably.

The_Apocalypse

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO.

Might not have at the time, but aren't all Labour supporters Corbynistas now, 'Oh Jeremy' and all that?

Don't see many Mayites thesedays though.

Most probably are - but I doubt that Conservative Remainers that switched to Labour are fully signed up to the Corbynista world view.

When you switch, you develop the zeal of the convert.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see this zeal from them.

Yorkcity

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

True never , thought he was a Lib Dem like you.

dixiedean

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.

Only problem is alcoholism is an addiction. A recognised medical condition. Nobody other than charlatans and those caught out define porn as an addiction. Neither is sex an addiction.
There is nowt wrong with porn or sex imho....but one can't be addicted to either.
One would need to show the withdrawal symptoms. Other than being horny, there aren't any.

I would disagree. Physical withdrawal is not a requirement. Addiction includes compulsive behaviour that damages either an individual or the people around them.

OK. If that is your medical opinion.
However, you are in danger of conflating 2 quite distinct issues. Addiction is not commonly understood as such. Compulsive behaviour can cover a wide range of activities. You are then reliant on a value judgement as to what damages an individual or those around them.
Harvey Weinstein does not have an addiction. He chooses to continue abusing women. He doesn't want to look at his behaviour and change. It affects him and the people around him sure, but he chooses all the same.
An addiction does not have to cause harm and therefore stands apart from any value judgements. Paid enough, one can function as a heroin addict, or lead the Lib Dems to their best vote in a long time.

The_Apocalypse

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

True never , thought he was a Lib Dem like you.

I thought he was a Conservative Remainer.

dixiedean

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

True never , thought he was a Lib Dem like you.

I thought he was a Conservative Remainer.

One of a surprising number who switched apparently.

Yorkcity

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

True never , thought he was a Lib Dem like you.

I thought he was a Conservative Remainer.

Well if you are correct he takes some vitriol from his conservative colleagues.

williamglenn

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

True never , thought he was a Lib Dem like you.

I thought he was a Conservative Remainer.

I am, or at least a centre-right Remainer. I was planning to cast a protest vote for the Lib Dems in 2017 but it seemed like a cop-out so I went all the way over to Labour. This was helped by the fact that my Conservative candidate was a Brexiteer and the Labour candidate was an anti-Corbynite Remainer.

bigjohnowls

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If only someone had tipped Hunt as next PM at 100/1.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/949398137243885569

Great Matt cartoon.

Superb.

Matt really is consistently the best

The_Apocalypse

williamglenn said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really like Boris and want him to be PM (I don't know any, but they obviously exist) presumably think this sort of thing is fine, in the same way that Trump's remaining support will be undeterred by the news that he likes to get his friends' wives to sleep with him - "yeah, whatever", the fans will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

True never , thought he was a Lib Dem like you.

I thought he was a Conservative Remainer.

I am, or at least a centre-right Remainer. I was planning to cast a protest vote for the Lib Dems in 2017 but it seemed like a cop-out so I went all the way over to Labour. This was helped by the fact that my Conservative candidate was a Brexiteer and the Labour candidate was an anti-Corbynite Remainer.

Ah, so my judgement was close! I remember you talking about the need for a europhile centre-right party at one point. Who was the anti-Corbynite Remainer you voted for?

Foxy

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any

Only problem is alcoholism is an

I would disagree. Physical withdrawal is not a requirement. Addiction includes compulsive behaviour that damages either an individual or the people around them.

OK. If that is your medical opinion.
However, you are in danger of conflating 2 quite distinct issues. Addiction is not commonly understood as such. Compulsive behaviour can cover a wide range of activities. You are then reliant on a value judgement as to what damages an individual or those around them.
Harvey Weinstein does not have an addiction. He chooses to continue abusing women. He doesn't want to look at his behaviour and change. It affects him and the people around him sure, but he chooses all the same.
An addiction does not have to cause harm and therefore stands apart from any value judgements. Paid enough, one can function as a heroin addict, or lead the Lib Dems to their best vote in a long time.

It is generally recognised that while physical addiction and psychological addiction are different, they do share features, for example in this US definition:

https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction

I would regard harm as a core feature, so for example compulsive gambling resulting in conflict with family.

Weinstein and sex addiction is an interesting case. Whether his behaviour meets the criteria fpr addiction is not something that I am privy to, but whether he is a sex addict or merely evil does not mitigate his behaviour, any more than a gambling addict embezzling from his workplace, or a heroin addict stealing family heirlooms. None of these would meet the criminal defence of insanity, as the individual would be aware that the act is a crime. Or in other words: Treatment of the addiction may reduce the risk of relapse, but doesn't reduce the crime.

The_Apocalypse

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who will say.

I don’t surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

True never , thought he was a Lib Dem like you.

I thought he was a Conservative Remainer.

Well if you are correct he takes some vitriol from his conservative colleagues.

Well, Conservative Remainers v Conservative Leavers is a somewhat familiar site these days. Many of the Tories on here who voted Leave aren’t great fans of Andrew Cooper et al.

dixiedean said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

I think Boris being outrageous is priced in and for some is part of the appeal. People who really will say.

I don’t think it’s completely priced in. The Mandelson article is appalling and shows just how much times have changed, and I was surprised to see him defending Section 28 as well.

You Corbynistas will be full of outrage. Non-Corbynistas will just shrug.

williamglenn is a Corbynista?

He voted Labour.

I’m shocked by that, but that doesn’t make him a Corbynista IMO. I rarely see him defending Corbyn.

True never , thought he was a Lib Dem like you.

I thought he was a Conservative Remainer.

One of a surprising number who switched apparently.

Yeah, I was shocked how many voted for Corbyn. Brexit really has changed the political landscape.

williamglenn

The_Apocalypse said:

Well, Conservative Remainers v Conservative Leavers is a somewhat familiar site these days. Many of the Tories on here who voted Leave aren’t great fans of Andrew Cooper et al.

The rancour is real.
https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/942138727194877953
https://twitter.com/AndrewCooper__/status/942144577221382144

TheScreamingEagles

williamglenn said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Well, Conservative Remainers v Conservative Leavers is a somewhat familiar site these days. Many of the Tories on here who voted Leave aren’t great fans of Andrew Cooper et al.

The rancour is real.
https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/942138727194877953
https://twitter.com/AndrewCooper__/status/942144577221382144

When it comes to Nick Timothy the word I associate with him rhymes with rancour.

Foxy

It does seem to be turning epidemic, From PHE today. Its hard to know when the peak will be.


https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/948977491884105728

dixiedean

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

Indeed.

One lied. The other didn’t.

So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?

Surely admitting an addiction of any

Only problem is alcoholism is an

I would disagree. Physical withdrawal is not a requirement. Addiction includes compulsive behaviour that damages either an individual or the people around them.

OK. If that is your medical opinion.
However, you are in danger of conflating 2 quite distinct issues. Addiction is not commonly understood as such. Compulsive behaviour can cover a wide range of activities. You are then reliant on a value judgement as to what damages an individual or those around them.
Harvey Weinstein does not have an addiction. He chooses to continue abusing women. He doesn't want to look at his behaviour and change. It affects him and the people around him sure, but he chooses all the same.
An addiction does not have to cause harm and therefore stands apart from any value judgements. Paid enough, one can function as a heroin addict, or lead the Lib Dems to their best vote in a long time.

It is generally recognised that while physical addiction and psychological addiction are different, they do share features, for example in this US definition:

https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction

I would regard harm as a core feature, so for example compulsive gambling resulting in conflict with family.

Weinstein and sex addiction is an interesting case. Whether his behaviour meets the criteria fpr addiction is not something that I am privy to, but whether he is a sex addict or merely evil does not mitigate his behaviour, any more than a gambling addict embezzling from his workplace, or a heroin addict stealing family heirlooms. None of these would meet the criminal defence of insanity, as the individual would be aware that the act is a crime. Or in other words: Treatment of the addiction may reduce the risk of relapse, but doesn't reduce the crime.

We are in danger of falling into semantics here. I will make my point whilst respecting your superior medical knowledge. Toby Young liking watching porn does not make him a porn addict. Just someone who watches porn. I, too, occasionally watch porn. That does not permit me to pass comment on a public forum about various women's breasts. If I do, and am found out, I will not claim to be an addict, just an inappropriate prat.
I think we can agree on this.