What kind of a moron waits till 10 minutes before to ask that question?
Good question. Struggling to answer it.
Perhaps he was caught up with doing other very important and dramatic things (China? Korea? Something on the Wall?) and only got to the 'Ops Room' in the nick of time. You know Donald. He's not your average politician.
19% supported the petition. I'm going to go with that 19% breaking 80% for the LDs.
Assume 50% turnout. That means the LDs start on 32%.
That's probably not enough. For the LDs to win this either:
a) turnout has to be more like 40% or b) the Brexit Party has to split the Leave vote
Surely there are significantly greater than 0 LDs who either did not think it worthy of recall, or could not be bothered to support recall but would vote in a by election?
I don't think anyone* doubts that protestors should be removed.
The question is merely about the proportionality of his behaviour.
If he had punched her in the face, and dragged her out the room by the hair, we'd all agree that he had acted with excessive force (I hope).
Likewise, if he'd politiely escorted her, perhaps by holding her arm and marching her to the door, we'd all agree he had not.
The question, then, is where the force applied was on the scale. And (personally), I think he used excessive force. Not wildly disproportionate. Not resigning as an MP (or even a minister). But a level of force that would - for a policeman - result in a talking to from a superior, or would in all of our day-to-day lives necessitate an apology.
[snip]
I think that police officers quite often use that degree of force or indeed a lot more, but in any case they are professionally trained to assess risk and to keep cool in this kind of situation. It's much harder for someone who is not trained to gauge the exact minimum level of force, in the heat of the moment and with adrenaline flowing. (Incidentally the distinction between fear and anger in this kind of situation is not clear-cut). I really don't see what the fuss is here, other than the usual anti-Tory presumption; if he did use marginally more than the absolute minimum, it was well within the bounds of the reasonable.
On a different note, there's another problem for Boris with the timing of this election.
Every new PM enjoys a honeymoon. Even in normal circumstances Boris would enjoy less of one than most. To add to this, almost as soon as he's in post everyone is off on holiday, taking all momentum out of it. Meanwhile, the clock will be ticking down again to the deadline.
It's far from ideal.
I don't think that Macmillan and Douglas-Home received much of a honeymoon on becoming PM. Moreover Harold Wilson took office in mid-October 1964 and saw his party lose the supposedly safe seat of Leyton in January 1965.Callaghan entered No 10 at beginning of April 1976 , yet Labour did not perform well at the May Local Elections that year - and by the Autumn his Government was very unpopular.. John Major replaced Thatcher at the end of November 1990 , and -despite an initial polling bounce - saw his party lose by elections at Ribble Valley and Monmouth in early 1991.
I remember those byelections. Both Tory candidates were named Evans. The one in Ribble Valley (Nigel) lost in part because in addition to the poll tax the LibDem campaigned on being local and Nigel Evans being Welsh. Then when the byelection in Monmouth came up, they picked a different Evans (Roger) who although Welsh took to dressing like an English country squire in tweeds etc.
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
I don't think anyone* doubts that protestors should be removed.
The question is merely about the proportionality of his behaviour.
If he had punched her in the face, and dragged her out the room by the hair, we'd all agree that he had acted with excessive force (I hope).
Likewise, if he'd politiely escorted her, perhaps by holding her arm and marching her to the door, we'd all agree he had not.
The question, then, is where the force applied was on the scale. And (personally), I think he used excessive force. Not wildly disproportionate. Not resigning as an MP (or even a minister). But a level of force that would - for a policeman - result in a talking to from a superior, or would in all of our day-to-day lives necessitate an apology.
The "whataboutery" where we ask "yeah, but those damn climate protestors" is incredibly dangerous to civil society. It's creating this false dichotomy where someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.
* OK. Excluding Sandy
He's apologised. Got a feeling this won't be enough for the baying crowd of hypocrites. Perhaps if he had been around for Jo Cox or Stephen Timms at the critical moment they wouldn't find his behaviour so worthy of blame. He has nothing to apologise for but yet has apologised. Very British!
BTW, Any apology from the trespassers for wrecking someone elses's occasion? And do such things matter to this mob mentality any more?
I'm no defender of Boris but what proportion of Tory members have Sky TV?
He has no need to do any of theses debates really, he's going to win anyway.
Sky News is on terrestrial so 98% ish?
Ah good point - my mistake
It's actually slightly more complex than that. Digital TV consists of channels compressed and bundled together onto individual frequencies - multiplexes - which are then transmitted over the air.
For instance BBC TV channels 1-4 (obv. exc. 3), plus loads of BBC radio channels are on BBCA. ITV and Channel 4 (and I think 5) are on another (D3/4). Sky News plus some other channels are on a different one that reaches a lot fewer homes: ~19 million compared to ~27 million. Therefore Sky News is available to fewer people OTA compared to the BBC.
IME during my many house moves, there was only one where we reliably got Sky News / Dave. we don't get them very well where we are, with the Sandy transmitter in sight from one of our windoes (Sandy Heath actually transmits many muxes, including the one holding Sky, at a lower power)
I'm no defender of Boris but what proportion of Tory members have Sky TV?
He has no need to do any of theses debates really, he's going to win anyway.
Sky News is on terrestrial so 98% ish?
Ah good point - my mistake
It's actually slightly more complex than that. Digital TV consists of channels compressed and bundled together onto individual frequencies - multiplexes - which are then transmitted over the air.
For instance BBC TV channels 1-4 (obv. exc. 3), plus loads of BBC radio channels are on BBCA. ITV and Channel 4 (and I think 5) are on another (D3/4). Sky News plus some other channels are on a different one that reaches a lot fewer homes: ~19 million compared to ~27 million. Therefore Sky News is available OTA compared to the BBC.
IME during my many house moves, there was only one where we reliably got Sky News / Dave. we don't get them very well where we are, with the Sandy transmitter in sight from one of our windoes (Sandy Heath actually transmits many muxes, including the one holding Sky, at a lower power)
Why oh why, when there are there so many crap freeview channels, do the broadcasting authorities simply not limit the number a bit and make sure every transmitter is transmitting them all?
I'm no defender of Boris but what proportion of Tory members have Sky TV?
He has no need to do any of theses debates really, he's going to win anyway.
Sky News is on terrestrial so 98% ish?
Ah good point - my mistake
It's actually slightly more complex than that. Digital TV consists of channels compressed and bundled together onto individual frequencies - multiplexes - which are then transmitted over the air.
For instance BBC TV channels 1-4 (obv. exc. 3), plus loads of BBC radio channels are on BBCA. ITV and Channel 4 (and I think 5) are on another (D3/4). Sky News plus some other channels are on a different one that reaches a lot fewer homes: ~19 million compared to ~27 million. Therefore Sky News is available to fewer people OTA compared to the BBC.
IME during my many house moves, there was only one where we reliably got Sky News / Dave. we don't get them very well where we are, with the Sandy transmitter in sight from one of our windoes (Sandy Heath actually transmits many muxes, including the one holding Sky, at a lower power)
We saw the excuses coming in over the last few weeks. People looking for unity, waiting and seeing, etc etc. Some of it is not unreasonable, but there's also the ones just fooling themselves that it is going to go differently, even talking up how he will clearly be better than they thought. Partisanship works its insidious magic in subtler ways for some than others.
It's likely that for some of them it was always a threat they intended not to follow through with, and they were just hoping to apply pressure.
People like to imagine they will be courageous. In reality, most are cowards but manage to rationalise their behaviour so that it seems quite reasonable and sensible.
Definitely Slaughterhouse 5. It is a great book and based on his own experience as a POW in Dresden in the firebombing. It is at times very funny indeed, and other times heartbreakingly sad.
I would also recommend "Breakfast of Champions", "Slapstick, or Lonesome No More" and "Player Piano" the latter being an early work.
I like the kindness and optimism in his books, despite their rather dystopian vision of America.
I'm no defender of Boris but what proportion of Tory members have Sky TV?
He has no need to do any of theses debates really, he's going to win anyway.
Sky News is on terrestrial so 98% ish?
Ah good point - my mistake
It's actually slightly more complex than that. Digital TV consists of channels compressed and bundled together onto individual frequencies - multiplexes - which are then transmitted over the air.
For instance BBC TV channels 1-4 (obv. exc. 3), plus loads of BBC radio channels are on BBCA. ITV and Channel 4 (and I think 5) are on another (D3/4). Sky News plus some other channels are on a different one that reaches a lot fewer homes: ~19 million compared to ~27 million. Therefore Sky News is available OTA compared to the BBC.
IME during my many house moves, there was only one where we reliably got Sky News / Dave. we don't get them very well where we are, with the Sandy transmitter in sight from one of our windoes (Sandy Heath actually transmits many muxes, including the one holding Sky, at a lower power)
Why oh why, when there are there so many crap freeview channels, do the broadcasting authorities simply not limit the number a bit and make sure every transmitter is transmitting them all?
(Father Jack Hackett voice): That would be an ecumenical matter.
I don't think anyone* doubts that protestors should be removed.
The question is merely about the proportionality of his behaviour.
If he had punched her in the face, and dragged her out the room by the hair, we'd all agree that he had acted with excessive force (I hope).
Likewise, if he'd politiely escorted her, perhaps by holding her arm and marching her to the door, we'd all agree he had not.
The question, then, is where the force applied was on the scale. And (personally), I think he used excessive force. Not wildly disproportionate. Not resigning as an MP (or even a minister). But a level of force that would - for a policeman - result in a talking to from a superior, or would in all of our day-to-day lives necessitate an apology.
[snip]
I think that police officers quite often use that degree of force or indeed a lot more, but in any case they are professionally trained to assess risk and to keep cool in this kind of situation. It's much harder for someone who is not trained to gauge the exact minimum level of force, in the heat of the moment and with adrenaline flowing. (Incidentally the distinction between fear and anger in this kind of situation is not clear-cut). I really don't see what the fuss is here, other than the usual anti-Tory presumption; if he did use marginally more than the absolute minimum, it was well within the bounds of the reasonable.
I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to people who were conducting their lawful business.
Whereas those who go looking to cause trouble should lose the benefit of doubt.
I'm no defender of Boris but what proportion of Tory members have Sky TV?
He has no need to do any of theses debates really, he's going to win anyway.
Sky News is on terrestrial so 98% ish?
Ah good point - my mistake
It's actually slightly more complex than that. Digital TV consists of channels compressed and bundled together onto individual frequencies - multiplexes - which are then transmitted over the air.
For instance BBC TV channels 1-4 (obv. exc. 3), plus loads of BBC radio channels are on BBCA. ITV and Channel 4 (and I think 5) are on another (D3/4). Sky News plus some other channels are on a different one that reaches a lot fewer homes: ~19 million compared to ~27 million. Therefore Sky News is available to fewer people OTA compared to the BBC.
IME during my many house moves, there was only one where we reliably got Sky News / Dave. we don't get them very well where we are, with the Sandy transmitter in sight from one of our windoes (Sandy Heath actually transmits many muxes, including the one holding Sky, at a lower power)
Indeed. But from the last figures I've seen (although that was about six years ago), many people are reluctant to watch too much TV over the air: either due to habit, slow Internet connections, or bandwidth throttling/limits. I'd expect the former to be particularly the case for older sections of society that might just be more Conservative-leaning.
We saw the excuses coming in over the last few weeks. People looking for unity, waiting and seeing, etc etc. Some of it is not unreasonable, but there's also the ones just fooling themselves that it is going to go differently, even talking up how he will clearly be better than they thought. Partisanship works its insidious magic in subtler ways for some than others.
It's likely that for some of them it was always a threat they intended not to follow through with, and they were just hoping to apply pressure.
Indeed - though I would doubt that to be the case in respect of people such as Dominic Grieve , Justine Greening, Philip Lee and Gutto Bebb.
We saw the excuses coming in over the last few weeks. People looking for unity, waiting and seeing, etc etc. Some of it is not unreasonable, but there's also the ones just fooling themselves that it is going to go differently, even talking up how he will clearly be better than they thought. Partisanship works its insidious magic in subtler ways for some than others.
It's likely that for some of them it was always a threat they intended not to follow through with, and they were just hoping to apply pressure.
People like to imagine they will be courageous. In reality, most are cowards but manage to rationalise their behaviour so that it seems quite reasonable and sensible.
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
I don't think anyone* doubts that protestors should be removed.
The question is merely about the proportionality of his behaviour.
If he had punched her in the face, and dragged her out the room by the hair, we'd all agree that he had acted with excessive force (I hope).
Likewise, if he'd politiely escorted her, perhaps by holding her arm and marching her to the door, we'd all agree he had not.
The question, then, is where the force applied was on the scale. And (personally), I think he used excessive force. Not wildly disproportionate. Not resigning as an MP (or even a minister). But a level of force that would - for a policeman - result in a talking to from a superior, or would in all of our day-to-day lives necessitate an apology.
The "whataboutery" where we ask "yeah, but those damn climate protestors" is incredibly dangerous to civil society. It's creating this false dichotomy where someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.
* OK. Excluding Sandy
He's apologised. Got a feeling this won't be enough for the baying crowd of hypocrites. Perhaps if he had been around for Jo Cox or Stephen Timms at the critical moment they wouldn't find his behaviour so worthy of blame. He has nothing to apologise for but yet has apologised. Very British!
BTW, Any apology from the trespassers for wrecking someone elses's occasion? And do such things matter to this mob mentality any more?
On the positive side, they’ve provided a topic of dinner party conversation for the next couple of weeks...
It is time for me to go to my aphorism pantry. (Inspects cans) "Angelina Jolie syndrome": ah, an oldie but a goodie. "Failing and blaming": always reliable, but not for this. Ah yes, this one (takes can out of pantry, opens it, aphorism falls into the table)
"Rule one of British politics: Tory Remainers have no stones"
Oh, I do like the smell of a freshly-opened aphorism...
Totally off topic. Which Kurt Vonnegut book should I start with?
I've only read "Galapagos", which is not one of his best: I'd describe it as "inoffensive"
And there is a part of me that thinks the best way to start reading Kurt Vonnegut is to pick up one of his books, then put it down and walk to the JG Ballard section, but that's more a funny line than a defensible thesis.
However, may I suggest "Mother Night"? Film or book.
We were discussing earlier whether Bojo might lose his seat at the GE. It's since occured to me that Jeremy Hunt is also in a somewhat precarious position - his seat is a high LD target, and the way things are going I wouldn't put money on him surviving.
Ssh - I think no-one's supposed to notice that one. But yes, Hunt himself is in a lot of trouble in a 4-way split of the vote. The one fly in the ointment is the NHA party are very active there and could help him hang on.
Might be worth Labour calling up the services of our good friend Nick Palmer. He must either be in his constituency or very close to its borders. There aren't many elected Labour representatives anywhere in that part of the country, let alone with parliamentary experience.
Comments
Perhaps he was caught up with doing other very important and dramatic things (China? Korea? Something on the Wall?) and only got to the 'Ops Room' in the nick of time. You know Donald. He's not your average politician.
But anyway, he made it, and thank god he did!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Brecon_and_Radnor_by-election#Result
I believe they both got in in the 1992 GE.
BTW, Any apology from the trespassers for wrecking someone elses's occasion? And do such things matter to this mob mentality any more?
For instance BBC TV channels 1-4 (obv. exc. 3), plus loads of BBC radio channels are on BBCA. ITV and Channel 4 (and I think 5) are on another (D3/4). Sky News plus some other channels are on a different one that reaches a lot fewer homes: ~19 million compared to ~27 million. Therefore Sky News is available to fewer people OTA compared to the BBC.
IME during my many house moves, there was only one where we reliably got Sky News / Dave. we don't get them very well where we are, with the Sandy transmitter in sight from one of our windoes (Sandy Heath actually transmits many muxes, including the one holding Sky, at a lower power)
I would also recommend "Breakfast of Champions", "Slapstick, or Lonesome No More" and "Player Piano" the latter being an early work.
I like the kindness and optimism in his books, despite their rather dystopian vision of America.
Whereas those who go looking to cause trouble should lose the benefit of doubt.
"Rule one of British politics: Tory Remainers have no stones"
Oh, I do like the smell of a freshly-opened aphorism...
And there is a part of me that thinks the best way to start reading Kurt Vonnegut is to pick up one of his books, then put it down and walk to the JG Ballard section, but that's more a funny line than a defensible thesis.
However, may I suggest "Mother Night"? Film or book.