Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
What does "bring you along" mean? Never heard that phrase. 3 and 4 are OK with me, normal linguistic evolution. I agree 6 is a bit pompous.
"Bring you along" = "train you up" or "issue guidance to you until done"
It annoys the fuck out of me because many years ago in the 20th century it meant "wank you off". So now when people use it, it really throws me. I have similar problems with 3 and 4, and there's usually a slight pause whilst I unravel the syntax.
I don't like tattoos and piercings but never say so in case someone is offended.
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
I am beginning to wonder whether his greatest domestic mistake was to indulge Jezza and not throw him out of the party in the late 90s.
I suspect the true heir to Blair is now Chuka Umunna rather than anyone in the current Labour Party and ironically the LDs are closer to New Labour now than Corbyn Labour is, despite the Kennedy LDs leading the opposition to the Iraq War
Blair was secretly hoping to forge an alliance with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 but when he won a massive majority the plan had to be shelved. But if it had taken place, people like Jeremy Corbyn probably would have walked out of the party in protest and he'd be a member of the Socialist Labour Party today.
I agree. I actually think it is quite possible the Labour Party will be in third in a decade behind the LDs and the Tories. The Tories are only really under threat of being overtaken as the main party of the right by the Brexit Party if they fail to deliver Brexit, Umunna though could well relaunch the LDs as the UK En Marche and complete the Blairite LD pact that failed to emerge in 1997 leaving Labour as a hard left Corbynite rump
Chuka could do all sorts of things but has ducked it every time. He withdrew from the Labour leadership race; let Heidi Allen run Tiggers for Change or whatever it is called this week; left that to go independent; got lonely and came in from the cold to join the LibDems just too late to run for their leadership. And are there two voters in the whole of Streatham who can enunciate Chuka's driving political philosophy?
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
I am beginning to wonder whether his greatest domestic mistake was to indulge Jezza and not throw him out of the party in the late 90s.
I suspect the true heir to Blair is now Chuka Umunna rather than anyone in the current Labour Party and ironically the LDs are closer to New Labour now than Corbyn Labour is, despite the Kennedy LDs leading the opposition to the Iraq War
Blair was secretly hoping to forge an alliance with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 but when he won a massive majority the plan had to be shelved. But if it had taken place, people like Jeremy Corbyn probably would have walked out of the party in protest and he'd be a member of the Socialist Labour Party today.
I agree. I actually think it is quite possible the Labour Party will be in third in a decade behind the LDs and the Tories. The Tories are only really under threat of being overtaken as the main party of the right by the Brexit Party if they fail to deliver Brexit, Umunna though could well relaunch the LDs as the UK En Marche and complete the Blairite LD pact that failed to emerge in 1997 leaving Labour as a hard left Corbynite rump
Chuka could do all sorts of things but has ducked it every time. He withdrew from the Labour leadership race; let Heidi Allen run Tiggers for Change or whatever it is called this week; left that to go independent; got lonely and came in from the cold to join the LibDems just too late to run for their leadership. And are there two voters in the whole of Streatham who can enunciate Chuka's driving political philosophy?
To be the UK Macron/Obama by whatever means necessary ultimately I think
This plan for a Boris coronation without a contest is madness. Won’t they learn ?
It won't be a coronation, the members will want a vote and the runner up will want to be the Not Boris candidate
If the runner up is miles behind and looks like getting a thrashing - would they want to stay in?
There are 200 odd "not Boris" MP's at present. It is very possible that Boris will be in second place by the time it goes to the members vote.
Yes. I have the suspicion this weekend may be Peak Boris. With him committed to a TV debate it will all get more tricky for the insouciantly entitled one from here on in. No wonder the Telegraph wants a coronation.
This plan for a Boris coronation without a contest is madness. Won’t they learn ?
It won't be a coronation, the members will want a vote and the runner up will want to be the Not Boris candidate
If the runner up is miles behind and looks like getting a thrashing - would they want to stay in?
There are 200 odd "not Boris" MP's at present. It is very possible that Boris will be in second place by the time it goes to the members vote.
No, it's not (well, it is possible but it's very unlikely).
Remember that there will be three candidates in the final MPs' round, so even if Boris didn't put on any new support, those 199 non-Boris MPs would have to split at least 115-84 for him to be in second.
More realistically, Boris will pick up most of the eliminated Leavers' votes: McVey, Leadsom and Raab. Even if he only gets half of them and no others, that would put him on 137, meaning that the rest of the votes would need to be lopsided by at least 138-38 for Boris to finish second. It ain't going to happen.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
Yes, that much is obvious. So why be an apologist for Kitchener's genocide of the Boers if you know little of South African history?
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
On this occasion it was correctly used
Ah, a narrative hook: how can I resist?
Back in the day, (say 20-30 years ago) the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" had a legal meaning: "in good faith" meant "you must provide all information requested" and "in utmost good faith" meant "you must provide all relevant information even if not requested". It was used in insurance when deciding risk coverage, and was drummed into me at the time that these terms had legal meaning and were not to be used imprecisely.
Fast-forward a couple of decades. Now people on this board are using it in the sense of "stringing the UK along" or "no intent for a deal". This usage confuses me because the EU has gone out of its way to be transparent and by the older definition is not just acting in good faith, it's acting in utmost good faith. But that definition seems to be in abeyance.
I think the new definition (if it has one!) has become a spacefiller, like "that's been thoroughly debunked" or "the first time in history" or "constitutional crisis", that is thrown into the conversation to add seeming weight but is not actually meaningful.
I use it in the sense that it is used in legal contracts - a requirement to negotiate fairly and with an objective or teaching an agreed deal
I could point out that using the word "fairly" in the definition of the phrase "fair and equitable" makes it recursive, but it's too late in the day and I have to be up in the morning...
This plan for a Boris coronation without a contest is madness. Won’t they learn ?
It won't be a coronation, the members will want a vote and the runner up will want to be the Not Boris candidate
If the runner up is miles behind and looks like getting a thrashing - would they want to stay in?
There are 200 odd "not Boris" MP's at present. It is very possible that Boris will be in second place by the time it goes to the members vote.
No, it's not (well, it is possible but it's very unlikely).
Remember that there will be three candidates in the final MPs' round, so even if Boris didn't put on any new support, those 199 non-Boris MPs would have to split at least 115-84 for him to be in second.
More realistically, Boris will pick up most of the eliminated Leavers' votes: McVey, Leadsom and Raab. Even if he only gets half of them and no others, that would put him on 137, meaning that the rest of the votes would need to be lopsided by at least 138-38 for Boris to finish second. It ain't going to happen.
I expect Boris will be in pole position, but the size of the field does exagerate his lead. There are too many *not Boris* factions.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
You should study the British Empire. It would horrify you. Might even cure you of your ailment.
Or he could study it, and admire it - as most of us do.
Interesting: I think, and I could be wrong, that the second debate (featuring Biden, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg) will be by far the most watched. I wonder if that is good news or bad news for Warren.
After Brexit there won’t be any point to the LDs - again.
There will.
There is always a place for a fiscally sane, mildly redistributive, internationalist, party, sometimes more than others. I expect polling to go up for the LDs post Brexit as buyers remorse hits the great British public.
Johnson is such a malign human being - probably very little different in outlook to the Kray twins - who were linked to the Tory peer Lord Boothby. Whilst I doubt that he would have other people killed, I really don't believe he would give a toss as to how others would suffer as long as his own interests were advanced. It speaks volumes about the amoral attitude of so many Tory MPs that they are prepared to hand great power to such a being.
This plan for a Boris coronation without a contest is madness. Won’t they learn ?
It won't be a coronation, the members will want a vote and the runner up will want to be the Not Boris candidate
A coronation would be quite sensible. Not ideal, perhaps, but you can see its merits. What would be stupid is a coronation followed by a confirmatory vote of the members.
Johnson is such a malign human being - probably very little different in outlook to the Kray twins - who were linked to the Tory peer Lord Boothby. Whilst I doubt that he would have other people killed, I really don't believe he would give a toss as to how others would suffer as long as his own interests were advanced.
Johnson is such a malign human being - probably very little different in outlook to the Kray twins - who were linked to the Tory peer Lord Boothby. Whilst I doubt that he would have other people killed, I really don't believe he would give a toss as to how others would suffer as long as his own interests were advanced.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
Yes, that much is obvious. So why be an apologist for Kitchener's genocide of the Boers if you know little of South African history?
Kitchener may have had concentration camps but they were not extermination camps as the Nazis had
Perhaps BJ is a single minded visionary who has always known what he wants but knows he can't tell us until he's achieved a position where he can make it happen: and perhaps he's not
This plan for a Boris coronation without a contest is madness. Won’t they learn ?
It won't be a coronation, the members will want a vote and the runner up will want to be the Not Boris candidate
A coronation would be quite sensible. Not ideal, perhaps, but you can see its merits. What would be stupid is a coronation followed by a confirmatory vote of the members.
Indeed and there won't be one, none of the others, Hunt nor Gove nor Raab nor Javid nor Stewart will withdraw in Boris' favour having got do close to the prize
Johnson is such a malign human being - probably very little different in outlook to the Kray twins - who were linked to the Tory peer Lord Boothby. Whilst I doubt that he would have other people killed, I really don't believe he would give a toss as to how others would suffer as long as his own interests were advanced. It speaks volumes about the amoral attitude of so many Tory MPs that they are prepared to hand great power to such a being.
Johnson is hardly Mao, Stalin or Hitler whatever else you think of him and given the Leader of the Opposition hangs around with known terrorists I don't think Corbyn Labour can take the moral high ground against Boris
Johnson is such a malign human being - probably very little different in outlook to the Kray twins - who were linked to the Tory peer Lord Boothby. Whilst I doubt that he would have other people killed, I really don't believe he would give a toss as to how others would suffer as long as his own interests were advanced.
Isn't that a bit strong?
Not at all.
I think most level headed people would disagree with you but then that depends ....
Johnson is such a malign human being - probably very little different in outlook to the Kray twins - who were linked to the Tory peer Lord Boothby. Whilst I doubt that he would have other people killed, I really don't believe he would give a toss as to how others would suffer as long as his own interests were advanced. It speaks volumes about the amoral attitude of so many Tory MPs that they are prepared to hand great power to such a being.
Johnson is hardly Mao, Stalin or Hitler whatever else you think of him and given the Leader of the Opposition hangs around with known terrorists I don't think Corbyn Labour can take the moral high ground against Boris
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
This plan for a Boris coronation without a contest is madness. Won’t they learn ?
It won't be a coronation, the members will want a vote and the runner up will want to be the Not Boris candidate
A coronation would be quite sensible. Not ideal, perhaps, but you can see its merits. What would be stupid is a coronation followed by a confirmatory vote of the members.
Indeed and there won't be one, none of the others, Hunt nor Gove nor Raab nor Javid nor Stewart will withdraw in Boris' favour having got do close to the prize
The last time the Tories had a coronation didn't turn out so well, as I recall, and it's not so long ago as for my recall to be subject to caveat concerning my advancing years and the impact on my thought processes
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
Fuck it. Let's just go the whole hog and leave tomorrow!
Perhaps BJ is a single minded visionary who has always known what he wants but knows he can't tell us until he's achieved a position where he can make it happen: and perhaps he's not
This may be niche, but are you implying he may be a Tulku, or Boddhisaattva?
Perhaps BJ is a single minded visionary who has always known what he wants but knows he can't tell us until he's achieved a position where he can make it happen: and perhaps he's not
This may be niche, but are you implying he may be a Tulku, or Boddhisaattva?
Too niche for me I'm afraid and I can't be arsed to google it
Johnson is such a malign human being - probably very little different in outlook to the Kray twins - who were linked to the Tory peer Lord Boothby. Whilst I doubt that he would have other people killed, I really don't believe he would give a toss as to how others would suffer as long as his own interests were advanced. It speaks volumes about the amoral attitude of so many Tory MPs that they are prepared to hand great power to such a being.
Yet you seem totally unfazed by McMao and Jezbollah
Johnson is such a malign human being - probably very little different in outlook to the Kray twins - who were linked to the Tory peer Lord Boothby. Whilst I doubt that he would have other people killed, I really don't believe he would give a toss as to how others would suffer as long as his own interests were advanced. It speaks volumes about the amoral attitude of so many Tory MPs that they are prepared to hand great power to such a being.
Yet you seem totally unfazed by McMao and Jezbollah
Perhaps BJ is a single minded visionary who has always known what he wants but knows he can't tell us until he's achieved a position where he can make it happen: and perhaps he's not
This may be niche, but are you implying he may be a Tulku, or Boddhisaattva?
Too niche for me I'm afraid and I can't be arsed to google it
Well let me do it for you. It is entirely possible, but somewhat unlikely.
Had the thought with all this about Parliament and proroguing..... would it be possible for a PM Johnson to visit the EU one morning for an emergency meeting (nothing said as to the purpose, just for 'talks') and there and then modify the Leaving date with the EU to later that night? .... Thus leaving it too late for Speaker Bercow and his cronies to do anything?
Perhaps BJ is a single minded visionary who has always known what he wants but knows he can't tell us until he's achieved a position where he can make it happen: and perhaps he's not
This may be niche, but are you implying he may be a Tulku, or Boddhisaattva?
I think he's the The Mandate, better known as N'yar Lat-Hotep, the Black Pharaoh. "Nyarlathotep" is a HP Lovecraft character that was co-opted by Charles Stross into his "Laundry Files" series of novels. One of those novels was frantically rewritten post-Brexit to reflect Stross's disgust at British politics, and the character of the Mandate (a charismatic demon with the ability to make people vote for him) was retconned to be a manifestation of Nyarlathotep and was installed as Prime Minister by a government agency following the failure of existing politicians to cope with a catastrophic event.
The Mandate is charismatic, patriotic, murderous and has ordered a tower of skulls to be built near Trafalgar Square: Norman Foster is doing the glass dome. The Mandate took over from the Coalition Government in 2014/5 after the unnamed Conservative Prime Minister and MP for Witney (yes, he's that specific) was possessed and fully castrated by followers of another Elder God, alongside his Education Secretary.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
You should study the British Empire. It would horrify you. Might even cure you of your ailment.
Or he could study it, and admire it - as most of us do.
Ummm: I would hope most people would have a rather more nuanced attitude than either decrying it as evil, or celebrating it as a paragon of civilization.
Had the thought with all this about Parliament and proroguing..... would it be possible for a PM Johnson to visit the EU one morning for an emergency meeting (nothing said as to the purpose, just for 'talks') and there and then modify the Leaving date with the EU to later that night? .... Thus leaving it too late for Speaker Bercow and his cronies to do anything?
Not sure whether that's technically possible but "abruptly invalidate all your global trading arrangements" is already pretty mental, without upgrading that to "abruptly invalidate all your global trading arrangements with like 25 minutes notice".
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
What happens if BJ receives 157 votes and all other candidates who have not been eliminated simply withdraws ?
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
What happens if BJ receives 157 votes and all other candidates who have not been eliminated simply withdraws ?
No vote, coronation. However, it's a tricky coordination problem because one of those guys might be tempted to wait until everyone else drops out and say, "Actually I think I'll stay in and see if Boris falls over during the members' vote".
A better way to get a coronation might be to have the votes so everyone can see Boris sweeping everything before him, then Boris just has to buy off the second-placed guy to drop out before the voting starts. Maybe give it 24 hours to pretend to take private soundings with party members and hear from them that they overwhelmingly back Boris and want him in office quick.
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
What happens if BJ receives 157 votes and all other candidates who have not been eliminated simply withdraws ?
No vote, coronation. However, it's a tricky coordination problem because one of those guys might be tempted to wait until everyone else drops out and say, "Actually I think I'll stay in and see if Boris falls over during the members' vote".
A better way to get a coronation might be to have the votes so everyone can see Boris sweeping everything before him, then Boris just has to buy off the second-placed guy to drop out before the voting starts. Maybe give it 24 hours to pretend to take private soundings with party members and hear from them that they overwhelmingly back Boris and want him in office quick.
Or just get a friendly Times journalist to do a hit job interview on your final two opponent, encourage the media to repeat those comments on speed for 48 hours and force them out of the race. Well its worked before!
Had the thought with all this about Parliament and proroguing..... would it be possible for a PM Johnson to visit the EU one morning for an emergency meeting (nothing said as to the purpose, just for 'talks') and there and then modify the Leaving date with the EU to later that night? .... Thus leaving it too late for Speaker Bercow and his cronies to do anything?
Of course he could.
The question is: what does the EU get out of this, that would encourage them to take the offer?
Had the thought with all this about Parliament and proroguing..... would it be possible for a PM Johnson to visit the EU one morning for an emergency meeting (nothing said as to the purpose, just for 'talks') and there and then modify the Leaving date with the EU to later that night? .... Thus leaving it too late for Speaker Bercow and his cronies to do anything?
Of course he could.
The question is: what does the EU get out of this, that would encourage them to take the offer?
Lower CO2 emissions, particularly in the UK and Ireland
Had the thought with all this about Parliament and proroguing..... would it be possible for a PM Johnson to visit the EU one morning for an emergency meeting (nothing said as to the purpose, just for 'talks') and there and then modify the Leaving date with the EU to later that night? .... Thus leaving it too late for Speaker Bercow and his cronies to do anything?
Of course he could.
The question is: what does the EU get out of this, that would encourage them to take the offer?
Lower CO2 emissions, particularly in the UK and Ireland
I suspect the true heir to Blair is now Chuka Umunna rather than anyone in the current Labour Party and ironically the LDs are closer to New Labour now than Corbyn Labour is, despite the Kennedy LDs leading the opposition to the Iraq War
Blair wasnPaddy Ashdown in 1997 but when he won a massive majority the plan had to be shelved. But if it had taken place, people like Jeremy Corbyn probably would have walked out of the party in protest and he'd be a member of the Socialist Labour Party today.
I agree. I actually think it is quite possible the Labour Party will be in third in a decade behind the LDs and the Tories. The Tories are only really under threat of being overtaken as the main party of the right by the Brexit Party if they fail to deliver Brexit, Umunna though could well relaunch the LDs as the UK En Marche and complete the Blairite LD pact that failed to emerge in 1997 leaving Labour as a hard left Corbynite rump
Chuka could do all sorts of things but has ducked it every time. He withdrew from the Labour leadership race; let Heidi Allen run Tiggers for Change or whatever it is called this week; left that to go independent; got lonely and came in from the cold to join the LibDems just too late to run for their leadership. And are there two voters in the whole of Streatham who can enunciate Chuka's driving political philosophy?
Where HY is right is that it is hard to see how Labour keeps its constituency together, given the varying interests of its three parts (generalising, the WWC, ethnic minorities, and the educated young) that straddle the emerging divide in western politics, with the baggage of their culture and structure, having emerged from the class struggle for emancipation, limiting their ability to reinvent themselves.
The most logical place for them to end up, based on the models from Europe, is as a left-wing union tied party representing a base predominantly of the working class (of all ethnicities) and public sector office workers.
Where you are right is that Chuka as an individual politician doesn’t display the skills needed to bring this about. He will bring a new dimension to the LibDems and act as a figurehead for the potential slow transfer of new support from Labour to the LibDems. If he does well (especially if re-elected) he could be a catalyst for others to join. He is an exemplar for the modern younger educated multi-ethnic London constituency that is already the battleground between LibDem and Labour in the capital.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Oh that’s alright then.
No. What happened was a tragedy. But it was not deliberate. @Stuart_Dickson phrasing misleads the reader
“Not deliberate” eh? You need to read up on this shameful period in Britain’s history. Of course it was deliberate.
It wasn't deliberate. It was gross incompetence and ambivalence but it wasn't deliberate.
The policy was to isolate Boer guerillas and deny them sustenance by putting their families into camps. Conditions were appalling but there was no policy of genocide.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
You should study the British Empire. It would horrify you. Might even cure you of your ailment.
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
What happens if BJ receives 157 votes and all other candidates who have not been eliminated simply withdraws ?
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
What happens if BJ receives 157 votes and all other candidates who have not been eliminated simply withdraws ?
I just don't see Rory withdrawing.
He'll need to be eliminated.
I need to do an analysis on how he gets through the next round. He needs 14 extra MPs now.
In particular, he needs most of Hancock's support to go to him now.
Had the thought with all this about Parliament and proroguing..... would it be possible for a PM Johnson to visit the EU one morning for an emergency meeting (nothing said as to the purpose, just for 'talks') and there and then modify the Leaving date with the EU to later that night? .... Thus leaving it too late for Speaker Bercow and his cronies to do anything?
The EU Commision would need the permission of all 27 countries, and when in the behind the scenes discussion the Irish government would go ape shit. Even if the Commision thought that this was a good idea, the harm it would cause within the 27 would be enough to ensure the Commission says no to the UK PM straight away. Remember, one thing the EU has been good at over the last 3 years, to the surprise of many Leavers, is that the unity between the 27 and the EU has held up well.
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
Fuck it. Let's just go the whole hog and leave tomorrow!
Fuck it. Lets go the whole hog and drop neuclear bombs in 27 Capital cities.
When debate reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled yes gallantly he chickened out and bravely did he turn about
Bravely taking to his feet he beat a very brave retreat bravest of the brave, Sir Boris!
Edited extra bit: On a serious note, I actually have qualms about debates and the media tail wagging the political dog. That said, Boris is unfit for high office, so I remain content to mock him.
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
Fuck it. Let's just go the whole hog and leave tomorrow!
Fuck it. Lets go the whole hog and drop neuclear bombs in 27 Capital cities.
26. Let that count as a warning to nuclear-armed Paris.......
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
What does "bring you along" mean? Never heard that phrase. 3 and 4 are OK with me, normal linguistic evolution. I agree 6 is a bit pompous.
"Bring you along" = "train you up" or "issue guidance to you until done"
It annoys the fuck out of me because many years ago in the 20th century it meant "wank you off". So now when people use it, it really throws me. I have similar problems with 3 and 4, and there's usually a slight pause whilst I unravel the syntax.
I don't like tattoos and piercings but never say so in case someone is offended.
The appearance of someone you don't know is their own business, and not yours, keep your opinion to yourself. This should not depend on whether they will be offended or not.
If you know somebody well enough, then in the right circumstances you can tell them your opinion.
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
What happens if BJ receives 157 votes and all other candidates who have not been eliminated simply withdraws ?
I just don't see Rory withdrawing.
He'll need to be eliminated.
Loose threats like that could get you into trouble....
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems we will indeed be down to the final 3 candidates after Tuesday's vote. Enough Tory MPs will conclude that voting for Raab, Javid and Stewart is a waste of time and unnecessarily prolonging the whole process.
What happens if BJ receives 157 votes and all other candidates who have not been eliminated simply withdraws ?
Had the thought with all this about Parliament and proroguing..... would it be possible for a PM Johnson to visit the EU one morning for an emergency meeting (nothing said as to the purpose, just for 'talks') and there and then modify the Leaving date with the EU to later that night? .... Thus leaving it too late for Speaker Bercow and his cronies to do anything?
In principle we should have left the EU already. If the EU does nothing, we're out on October 31. It makes these decisions on its self interest. The issue on the UK side is that parliament has to pass certain bits of legislation. Nevertheless, if Johnson can persuade the EU to push us out but not parliament to pull us out, we still go out.
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
I'm too sheltered to know what 'flesh tunnels' are, but not so sheltered that I'm sure you're right that I'd hate them if I knew.
However, I'm disappointed that you missed out "people who say 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'."
I googled it
Why would people do that to themselves?
Sometimes people go to extreme lengths to demonstrate their autonomy over themselves, even if it's purely symbolic and onlookers regard it as pointless self-mutilation.
Comments
Remember that there will be three candidates in the final MPs' round, so even if Boris didn't put on any new support, those 199 non-Boris MPs would have to split at least 115-84 for him to be in second.
More realistically, Boris will pick up most of the eliminated Leavers' votes: McVey, Leadsom and Raab. Even if he only gets half of them and no others, that would put him on 137, meaning that the rest of the votes would need to be lopsided by at least 138-38 for Boris to finish second. It ain't going to happen.
There is always a place for a fiscally sane, mildly redistributive, internationalist, party, sometimes more than others. I expect polling to go up for the LDs post Brexit as buyers remorse hits the great British public.
Funny old world
The Mandate is charismatic, patriotic, murderous and has ordered a tower of skulls to be built near Trafalgar Square: Norman Foster is doing the glass dome. The Mandate took over from the Coalition Government in 2014/5 after the unnamed Conservative Prime Minister and MP for Witney (yes, he's that specific) was possessed and fully castrated by followers of another Elder God, alongside his Education Secretary.
So nothing like Boris, then. Oh dearie me, no...
https://twitter.com/prestoncouncil/status/1139261213114798085
A better way to get a coronation might be to have the votes so everyone can see Boris sweeping everything before him, then Boris just has to buy off the second-placed guy to drop out before the voting starts. Maybe give it 24 hours to pretend to take private soundings with party members and hear from them that they overwhelmingly back Boris and want him in office quick.
The question is: what does the EU get out of this, that would encourage them to take the offer?
The most logical place for them to end up, based on the models from Europe, is as a left-wing union tied party representing a base predominantly of the working class (of all ethnicities) and public sector office workers.
Where you are right is that Chuka as an individual politician doesn’t display the skills needed to bring this about. He will bring a new dimension to the LibDems and act as a figurehead for the potential slow transfer of new support from Labour to the LibDems. If he does well (especially if re-elected) he could be a catalyst for others to join. He is an exemplar for the modern younger educated multi-ethnic London constituency that is already the battleground between LibDem and Labour in the capital.
But the next Macron, he isn’t.
The policy was to isolate Boer guerillas and deny them sustenance by putting their families into camps. Conditions were appalling but there was no policy of genocide.
I consider it our greatest achievement.
He'll need to be eliminated.
In particular, he needs most of Hancock's support to go to him now.
Perhaps they should operate like all other broadcasters then and not be funded by a compulsory unenforceable telly tax?
Brave Sir Boris ran away
bravely ran away, away
When debate reared its ugly head
he bravely turned his tail and fled
yes gallantly he chickened out
and bravely did he turn about
Bravely taking to his feet
he beat a very brave retreat
bravest of the brave, Sir Boris!
Edited extra bit: On a serious note, I actually have qualms about debates and the media tail wagging the political dog. That said, Boris is unfit for high office, so I remain content to mock him.
If you know somebody well enough, then in the right circumstances you can tell them your opinion.
See in the boys in blue .....
Fred is dead