Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit: Some Inconvenient Facts that the Tories need to face

245

Comments

  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,482
    EPG said:

    Why are there no privacy issues? Because he wants the power to rule over you. The Brexit movement can't demand Queensberry rules of politics out of one side of its face, and scream "death to traitors" out of the other.

    'The movement' is screaming that is it?
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    kinabalu said:

    Just thinking - if (when) Labour commit to Ref2 will the Lib Dems move to Revoke in order to out-remain them?

    If they did as a result of the possible Labour policy articulated earlier it would actually be more honest. Second referendum at first seemed right but I now think referendums don’t work in a parliamentary democracy on complex issues and political parties should stand by their convictions at the ballot box. Cameron promised the first referendum to stave of UKIP but he really should have faced them up.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    New fact 18 with a bearing on fact 11 and the discussion FPT on whether May can commend Boris to the Palace. MPs will be on holiday in August.
    https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

    This means MPs will not be able to no-confidence the new Prime Minister, Boris, Hunt or Corbyn, and will have limited time to block no-deal Brexit (assuming either Boris or Hunt really wants that, which is open to doubt).

    Bizarre.

    5th September to October 15th is six weeks. More than ample time for a Vote of No Confidence.

    We had all this guff before about Parliament 'not being able to prevent No Deal / Brexit blah blah.'

    They did. And they will.
    The point is that the Conservative leadership election is scheduled to end 22 July. Boris (or Hunt) will become Prime Minister, and the Commons will rise a couple of days later so there will be no time to no-confidence Boris (or Hunt). Of course, that can be done later but the bookmakers will have paid out by then.
    If a motion of no confidence is tabled it takes priority over other motions and will (I believe) be voted on the next day. So "a couple of days" is more than long enough to hold a vote.

    If the vote fails then it is moot. If the vote passes then the Commons has 14 days to sort an alternative out or head into a General Elections - so I can't see them going into recess while that is happening.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,190
    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    Wee Fraser obviously had second thoughts.

    https://twitter.com/_p3te/status/1142437024135360513

    If all the people are right who are saying it's a storm in a wineglass, nothing to see (or hear) here, surely the recording will confirm that?
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    A certain unanimity of opinion in the twitter responses to the Nelson tweet ;)
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    Recording it for the Police or Council is one thing. Recording it then selling/giving it to the Guardian? That's something different.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,777
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215

    algarkirk said:

    All true. Examination of the issues shows that to leave the EU TMs deal is still the only option, and it must be likely that with the use of smoke and mirrors that is what Boris, if given the chance, will try. But will he get the chance?

    The lengthy list leaves out a central issue: assuming Boris wins can he get to the starting gate of forming a stable government and winning an early VONC? I think there must be a bit of doubt. The DUP are not reliable, and he would only need a small number of implacable foes on his own side to be defeated. Could this become an issue in the campaign between Hunt and Boris?

    My expectation of the Boris gameplan (not based on any inside information) is:

    1. Embellish the existing WA with smoke and mirrors, just as you say. Lots of lovely promises in the political declaration. Fierce proclamations. Disparaging personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. The EU perceives the same old WA through the smoke, rolls its eyes and lets him try.

    2. If Parliament passes it, fine. Onwards! Upwards!

    3. If Parliament votes it down, call an election. "Enough is enough", "let's get it done", "speak for Britain", etc etc. Boris will gamble that he can win by force of personality. Deselect anyone who dissents, call them something like "nasty nitpicking nonentities". Take on Farage and Corbyn in debate, and deploy bluster.

    4. If he wins, fabulous for him. If he loses, oh well, it was fun anyway.

    You know what...I agree with Nick. Got it in four.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    A friend (yes, really) had trouble with a very inconsiderate, noisy neighbour. The council noise abatement officer asked them to keep a diary of the noise and, if possible, record examples.

    You can even get apps for it.
    https://www.thenoiseapp.com/#/

    It might just be that this neighbour had had problems before the happy couple moved in.
    Doesn't it make it a hassle to sell the house if you do that? My friend had the same issue, but I think it meant he had to declare it to any prospective buyer if he got the council involved
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Where is this flat ?

    I wonder if Boris is claiming any sort of accommodation allowance from Parliament.

    You can get a nice 4 bed detached for not much more than half a mill in his constituency

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-72333976.html
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Is there no right to privacy if you have the curtains open? Can papparazi photograph you inside your home and publish it?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,708
    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    Whether it is the “right thing to do” or not, recording ambient sound in your own household can in no way be described as ‘snooping’.

  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    Foxy said:

    All so true. No one is listening. No one will listen until it is too late.

    @Cyclefree has that inconvenient ability to keep bringing facts into the discussion...
    Facts can be wilfully discounted when there's a belief system in place contrary to them...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,708

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Is there no right to privacy if you have the curtains open? Can papparazi photograph you inside your home and publish it?
    Can you disturb your neighbours in their own homes and claim a right to be ignored ?

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,777
    JohnO said:

    algarkirk said:

    All true. Examination of the issues shows that to leave the EU TMs deal is still the only option, and it must be likely that with the use of smoke and mirrors that is what Boris, if given the chance, will try. But will he get the chance?

    The lengthy list leaves out a central issue: assuming Boris wins can he get to the starting gate of forming a stable government and winning an early VONC? I think there must be a bit of doubt. The DUP are not reliable, and he would only need a small number of implacable foes on his own side to be defeated. Could this become an issue in the campaign between Hunt and Boris?

    My expectation of the Boris gameplan (not based on any inside information) is:

    1. Embellish the existing WA with smoke and mirrors, just as you say. Lots of lovely promises in the political declaration. Fierce proclamations. Disparaging personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. The EU perceives the same old WA through the smoke, rolls its eyes and lets him try.

    2. If Parliament passes it, fine. Onwards! Upwards!

    3. If Parliament votes it down, call an election. "Enough is enough", "let's get it done", "speak for Britain", etc etc. Boris will gamble that he can win by force of personality. Deselect anyone who dissents, call them something like "nasty nitpicking nonentities". Take on Farage and Corbyn in debate, and deploy bluster.

    4. If he wins, fabulous for him. If he loses, oh well, it was fun anyway.

    You know what...I agree with Nick. Got it in four.
    +1
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Where is this flat ?

    I wonder if Boris is claiming any sort of accommodation allowance from Parliament.

    You can get a nice 4 bed detached for not much more than half a mill in his constituency

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-72333976.html
    Camberwell.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    On Nelson's 'reasoning' the photo of Saatchi grabbing Nigella by the throat should never have been published. Which is odd considering that the Spectator wanted to set up a fight over it.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/01/taki-step-outside-mr-saatchi/
    Two very different issues there.

    The Saatchi/Nigella issue showed domestic violence. This is an argument nothing more (as the Police have confirmed).
    The Saatchi/Nigella photo was taken in public. Not in somebodies home.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    Whether it is the “right thing to do” or not, recording ambient sound in your own household can in no way be described as ‘snooping’.

    Giving sounds from your neighbours home to a newspaper certainly can be.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,270
    nichomar said:

    If they did as a result of the possible Labour policy articulated earlier it would actually be more honest. Second referendum at first seemed right but I now think referendums don’t work in a parliamentary democracy on complex issues and political parties should stand by their convictions at the ballot box. Cameron promised the first referendum to stave of UKIP but he really should have faced them up.

    I feel the same. I want to Remain but I do not want a 2nd Referendum. And I do not want a 2nd Referendum more than I want to Remain. Therefore my preference is for the Withdrawal Agreement.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,482
    I have been quite clear that I don't trust Boris or want him as PM. But this attempted take down by the nosey neighbours and the Grauniad has given me considerable sympathy for him.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,708

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    Whether it is the “right thing to do” or not, recording ambient sound in your own household can in no way be described as ‘snooping’.

    Giving sounds from your neighbours home to a newspaper certainly can be.
    Which is something I deprecated when it happened.
    (Though legally I’m not sure there’s any way of preventing their doing so, and ‘snooping’ is still inaccurate.)
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101
    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Where is this flat ?

    I wonder if Boris is claiming any sort of accommodation allowance from Parliament.

    You can get a nice 4 bed detached for not much more than half a mill in his constituency

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-72333976.html
    Camberwell.
    The posh name for Peckham :wink:

    Does Boris have a constituency home ?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Where is this flat ?

    I wonder if Boris is claiming any sort of accommodation allowance from Parliament.

    You can get a nice 4 bed detached for not much more than half a mill in his constituency

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-72333976.html
    Camberwell.
    The posh name for Peckham :wink:

    Does Boris have a constituency home ?
    Not sure, I thought he had a place in Oxfordshire. Didn’t he vote there in the local elections in May?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,048
    isam said:

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    A friend (yes, really) had trouble with a very inconsiderate, noisy neighbour. The council noise abatement officer asked them to keep a diary of the noise and, if possible, record examples.

    You can even get apps for it.
    https://www.thenoiseapp.com/#/

    It might just be that this neighbour had had problems before the happy couple moved in.
    Doesn't it make it a hassle to sell the house if you do that? My friend had the same issue, but I think it meant he had to declare it to any prospective buyer if he got the council involved
    I don't know, although it wouldn't surprise me. My friend and her husband were renting, so that wouldn't have applied. I've no idea if they ever got the landlord of their place involved.

    They did say that the noise was a real blight on their lives for months.

    (Even if this is the case for these neighbours, and Boris and his gf have been making noise regularly, I'm rather dubious about them informing the media about it.)
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    Whether it is the “right thing to do” or not, recording ambient sound in your own household can in no way be described as ‘snooping’.

    Giving sounds from your neighbours home to a newspaper certainly can be.
    Which is something I deprecated when it happened.
    (Though legally I’m not sure there’s any way of preventing their doing so, and ‘snooping’ is still inaccurate.)
    Just because you can see or hear a neighbour doesn't mean they don't have a right to privacy.

    Looking out of your own window it can be possible to look into neighbours homes (through their windows) or gardens. Would filming that be acceptable or snooping?

    I once was looking out of my window at the road waiting for someone to pull up I saw the nextdoor neighbour walk past her window wearing nothing but a towel. I hurriedly averted my eyes. If instead I'd grabbed a camera . . . that would IMO be a major invasion of privacy. If I'd put that on the internet or sold it to a paper if she'd been a celebrity then "snooping" is the least offensive word I would use.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,048

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Where is this flat ?

    I wonder if Boris is claiming any sort of accommodation allowance from Parliament.

    You can get a nice 4 bed detached for not much more than half a mill in his constituency

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-72333976.html
    More interesting: I wonder how long their rental period is: did Boris make an assumption he'd be moving out in a few months? ;)

    (Assuming it wasn't his gf's flat and he moved in.)
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    Scott_P said:
    How long will it take for people desperate for Boris to make a gaffe to stop feigning astonishment that he is trying to play it straight?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    Whether it is the “right thing to do” or not, recording ambient sound in your own household can in no way be described as ‘snooping’.

    Giving sounds from your neighbours home to a newspaper certainly can be.
    Which is something I deprecated when it happened.
    (Though legally I’m not sure there’s any way of preventing their doing so, and ‘snooping’ is still inaccurate.)
    Just because you can see or hear a neighbour doesn't mean they don't have a right to privacy.

    Looking out of your own window it can be possible to look into neighbours homes (through their windows) or gardens. Would filming that be acceptable or snooping?

    I once was looking out of my window at the road waiting for someone to pull up I saw the nextdoor neighbour walk past her window wearing nothing but a towel. I hurriedly averted my eyes. If instead I'd grabbed a camera . . . that would IMO be a major invasion of privacy. If I'd put that on the internet or sold it to a paper if she'd been a celebrity then "snooping" is the least offensive word I would use.
    Dear Deidre

    I was watching my next door neighbour's daughter sunbathing topless from my bedroom window.

    As I was knocking one out I turned to notice my wife just stood there, arms folded...watching me.

    Is my wife a pervert?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Scott_P said:
    Weren't the "buses" an expensive disaster costing Londoners a lot of unnecessary money? An example of him making a promise, and following through on it, yes, but a promise he should never have made in the first place without understanding properly what the promise would involve.

    Wonder if there's anything else he's made a promise on which might ultimately turn out to be an ill-thought out disaster...
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,777
    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    If your neighbours can hear you rowing after midnight loud enough to make out the words, I suspect you have forfeited your right to privacy - meanwhile lots of entertaining speculation about what "high tech equipment" these "ultra Remainer neighbours" had from the apologists....."through brick walls" - they even know the construction of the property......
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    I think the cult of Bozo is more likely to desert him.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    The tweets you are pasting -- do these relate to the hustings this afternoon?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    In contemporary politics, every side thinks they are the only sane ones. Quite awful really, diversity of opinion is not allowed, all dissenters are mentally ill or dupes.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,270

    I have been quite clear that I don't trust Boris or want him as PM. But this attempted take down by the nosey neighbours and the Grauniad has given me considerable sympathy for him.

    I have zero sympathy. He spilled red wine on a sofa that does not belong to him and then tried to make light of it. Guy who does that is quite capable of mishandling Brexit. Best we know now.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,983
    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    Whether it is the “right thing to do” or not, recording ambient sound in your own household can in no way be described as ‘snooping’.

    Giving sounds from your neighbours home to a newspaper certainly can be.
    Which is something I deprecated when it happened.
    (Though legally I’m not sure there’s any way of preventing their doing so, and ‘snooping’ is still inaccurate.)
    Just because you can see or hear a neighbour doesn't mean they don't have a right to privacy.

    Looking out of your own window it can be possible to look into neighbours homes (through their windows) or gardens. Would filming that be acceptable or snooping?

    I once was looking out of my window at the road waiting for someone to pull up I saw the nextdoor neighbour walk past her window wearing nothing but a towel. I hurriedly averted my eyes. If instead I'd grabbed a camera . . . that would IMO be a major invasion of privacy. If I'd put that on the internet or sold it to a paper if she'd been a celebrity then "snooping" is the least offensive word I would use.
    Dear Deidre

    I was watching my next door neighbour's daughter sunbathing topless from my bedroom window.

    As I was knocking one out I turned to notice my wife just stood there, arms folded...watching me.

    Is my wife a pervert?
    Knocking one out? A newspaper column, I assume? :smiley:
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The tweets you are pasting -- do these relate to the hustings this afternoon?

    yes, happening now
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,983
    Scott_P said:
    Like? Perhaps. Exactly like? No. Why do journalists always seek to overstate things.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,983
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,048

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    If your neighbours can hear you rowing after midnight loud enough to make out the words, I suspect you have forfeited your right to privacy - meanwhile lots of entertaining speculation about what "high tech equipment" these "ultra Remainer neighbours" had from the apologists....."through brick walls" - they even know the construction of the property......
    It's probably just the engineering geek in me, but there's loads of interesting questions about that. Are the flats in totally separate buildings (and hence might have brick/block party walls between them), or a subdivided house, in which case the divisions between them might be rather thin, especially if the division was done before modern fire regs.

    Doesn't really effect the facts of the incident, though.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    In contemporary politics, every side thinks they are the only sane ones. Quite awful really, diversity of opinion is not allowed, all dissenters are mentally ill or dupes.
    "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity."

    That, and

    "My country is Kiltartan Cross,
    My countrymen Kiltartan's poor,
    No likely end could bring them loss
    Or leave them happier than before."

    are things I think pretty much every day in relation to Brexit. The Irish perspective is very valuable

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,983
    Scott_P said:
    Haven’t they already confirmed they attended a call, and no arrests were made?
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,561
    edited June 2019
    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    If a cult of Jo Swinson could be engineered we would very soon have a full house of parties with cult leaders. If however the LDs could stay sounding even slightly normal they could cash in as the only refuge for people who aren't a bit weird, and who aren't cultists, Marxists, nationalists (pick your own English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish varieties), religious extremists (let's hear it for the DUP) or otherwise deranged.

    What price they could be in power?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Like? Perhaps. Exactly like? No. Why do journalists always seek to overstate things.
    Jeremy Corbyn’s and Boris Johnson’s supporters have the same cult-like approach.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,983

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Like? Perhaps. Exactly like? No. Why do journalists always seek to overstate things.
    Jeremy Corbyn’s and Boris Johnson’s supporters have the same cult-like approach.
    Agree it’s cult-like, what with the booing of the press. What it isn’t is exactly like a religious cult. Otherwise it’d be a religious cult. :p
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851
    isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    In contemporary politics, every side thinks they are the only sane ones. Quite awful really, diversity of opinion is not allowed, all dissenters are mentally ill or dupes.
    There was an interesting article in yesterday's Economist about Leavers and Remainers. The Remain vote is far more concentrated than the Leave vote. There are 15 constituencies where Remain won 75%+, but only one where Leave did so well. The author thought it helped Leavers that they are exposed to the opinions of Remainers, whereas it's disadvantageous to Remainers that many of them don't get to encounter Leavers at all.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    nichomar said:

    The UK will not elect a single issue Ltd company to power and hand them a blank cheque. I’m afraid no one is going to take to the streets in any numbers to fight for no deal. The world out there is not obsessed by this.

    Word of advice. The legal structure of a political party is the ultimate process issue.

    No one at Westminster cares, no one in the country cares (except you I guess). It will shift precisely zero votes.

    If you want to be effective, suggest you find a new line of attack
    Funny, some folk on here seem to fixate on the legal structure of the Labour party, trade union influence and who holds the reins of power in the NEC. Perhaps they should find a new line of attack.
    Trade union (or big donor) influence, people who control the direction (whether that’s NEC or CCO) are all fair game

    Whether a political party is a limited company, an association, a company limited by guarantee or whatever seems an odd focus for me

    (Of course the real motive for my post is that @nichomar mentions it almost every post and it’s rather boring to read again and again!)
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,048
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Haven’t they already confirmed they attended a call, and no arrests were made?
    AIUI (might be wrong), they initially denied it, until the Guardian gave them details of the vehicles that attended. They then gave a different story.

    If it's correct, that doesn't seem a good thing for the police to be doing.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD's wonderful YouGov had BXP on 37% for the Euros - they got 31%. That is some overstatement well outside the margin of error
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,777

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    If your neighbours can hear you rowing after midnight loud enough to make out the words, I suspect you have forfeited your right to privacy - meanwhile lots of entertaining speculation about what "high tech equipment" these "ultra Remainer neighbours" had from the apologists....."through brick walls" - they even know the construction of the property......
    It's probably just the engineering geek in me, but there's loads of interesting questions about that. Are the flats in totally separate buildings (and hence might have brick/block party walls between them), or a subdivided house, in which case the divisions between them might be rather thin, especially if the division was done before modern fire regs.
    From the photographs of the front door it looks like it may be a conversion - but we're speculating, just as the people who assume that the neighbours who had "specialist equipment to record through brick walls".
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    nichomar said:

    Charles said:

    nichomar said:

    The UK will not elect a single issue Ltd company to power and hand them a blank cheque. I’m afraid no one is going to take to the streets in any numbers to fight for no deal. The world out there is not obsessed by this.

    Word of advice. The legal structure of a political party is the ultimate process issue.

    No one at Westminster cares, no one in the country cares (except you I guess). It will shift precisely zero votes.

    If you want to be effective, suggest you find a new line of attack
    Well a party with 5/6 members in complete control of its effective CEO with no policy apart from brexit no deal needs to be stated time and time again because it is not a ‘normal’ political party and in no way should be trusted with power.
    Ok, fine. Won’t have any impact but do what you want to do.
    I’m sure you were just as relaxed about Arthur Scargill being president for life of the NUM.

    It is rather odd that a party that claims to be about ensuring democracy is a lifetime dictatorship.
    Sure - Farage’s control of the party is a fair point of concern (as is data ownership etc). The precise mechanism seems an odd focus.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851
    algarkirk said:

    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    If a cult of Jo Swinson could be engineered we would very soon have a full house of parties with cult leaders. If however the LDs could stay sounding even slightly normal they could cash in as the only refuge for people who aren't a bit weird, and who aren't cultists, Marxists, nationalists (pick your own English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish varieties), religious extremists (let's hear it for the DUP) or otherwise deranged.

    What price they could be in power?
    There have been many very odd Lib Dems, over the years.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,126

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    If your neighbours can hear you rowing after midnight loud enough to make out the words, I suspect you have forfeited your right to privacy - meanwhile lots of entertaining speculation about what "high tech equipment" these "ultra Remainer neighbours" had from the apologists....."through brick walls" - they even know the construction of the property......
    It's probably just the engineering geek in me, but there's loads of interesting questions about that. Are the flats in totally separate buildings (and hence might have brick/block party walls between them), or a subdivided house, in which case the divisions between them might be rather thin, especially if the division was done before modern fire regs.

    Doesn't really effect the facts of the incident, though.
    You can easily hear people shouting through solid brick walls, as anyone who lives in a terraced house or semi can tell you. FWIW If I heard a woman screaming "get off me" I would be worried and might well record it for evidence if I had the presence of mind.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    At the next GE, Labour and the the Tories will be offering us the choice of two lazy racists who do not believe they should be subjected to scrutiny. No wonder other parties are doing so well currently.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,777
    alex. said:

    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    I think the cult of Bozo is more likely to desert him.
    The cult of Bozo only believes in one thing, while the cult of Corbyn is absolutely certain about many things....
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,263
    I doubt there is anything that Boris could now do to lose. It doesn't matter that he is caught lying or recorded shouting or whatever he does tomorrow or next week. The Tory party selectorate - happy as they are to destroy the Union the economy and the party to achieve Brexit - simply do not care about anything that isn't Brexit.

    Their view is that Boris is the only option to deliver Brexit and so they will vote for Boris. Regardless of what the next scandal turns out to be.
  • Options
    kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    Scott_P said:
    I’m sorry but most couples row, it’s normal , he spilt wine on the sofa , they had a tiff, so what , he hasn’t beaten her up , she may have lost her temper , you wanna year my wife when I’m in the doghouse, this is all so overblown , it’s become a media feeding frenzy over a non event , with politically motivated neighbours who sold the recording to the guardian invading their neighbours basic privacy rights. Why not just call the police if you are so concerned ?? It’s a circus motivated to bring down Boris
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    RobD said:
    Is she talking about the leadership of her party?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Haven’t they already confirmed they attended a call, and no arrests were made?
    AIUI (might be wrong), they initially denied it, until the Guardian gave them details of the vehicles that attended. They then gave a different story.

    If it's correct, that doesn't seem a good thing for the police to be doing.
    Not much of a surprise that the police have managed to come out of this looking bad.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851
    kjohnw said:

    Scott_P said:
    I’m sorry but most couples row, it’s normal , he spilt wine on the sofa , they had a tiff, so what , he hasn’t beaten her up , she may have lost her temper , you wanna year my wife when I’m in the doghouse, this is all so overblown , it’s become a media feeding frenzy over a non event , with politically motivated neighbours who sold the recording to the guardian invading their neighbours basic privacy rights. Why not just call the police if you are so concerned ?? It’s a circus motivated to bring down Boris
    I don't even like Boris, but this story is shit. People argue.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,053
    edited June 2019

    HYUFD's wonderful YouGov had BXP on 37% for the Euros - they got 31%. That is some overstatement well outside the margin of error

    Yougov was actually pretty close to the final result as opposed to Survation whose final poll had Labour on 23% for the European elections compared to the 14% they got.

    Yougov also had the LDs correctly in second place though they underestimated the Tories and Labour a little bit
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,989
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: pre-race article likely up tomorrow, though I'll do the preamble now. Considering backing Vettel to not be classified. Was tempted by Leclerc on that score in Monaco and decided against it. When a driver's head isn't screwed on right, things can go sideways quickly.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,777
    edited June 2019
    Iain Dale doing a good job of moderating - puncturing Boris's blustery answers with direct on the point questions.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    edited June 2019
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD's wonderful YouGov had BXP on 37% for the Euros - they got 31%. That is some overstatement well outside the margin of error

    Yougov was actually pretty close to the final result as opposed to Survation whose final poll had Labour ahead for the European elections.

    Yougov also had the LDs correctly in second place though they underestimated the Tories and Labour a little bit

    Yep, YouGov called it pretty much spot on - except for the BXP result, which was way beyond the margin of error. With that in mind, it's worth noting that in its latest poll, Labour+LibDem+Green = 50%. That's a lot of scope for tactical voting if Johnson decides to call an early election.

  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101
    Sean_F said:

    isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    In contemporary politics, every side thinks they are the only sane ones. Quite awful really, diversity of opinion is not allowed, all dissenters are mentally ill or dupes.
    There was an interesting article in yesterday's Economist about Leavers and Remainers. The Remain vote is far more concentrated than the Leave vote. There are 15 constituencies where Remain won 75%+, but only one where Leave did so well. The author thought it helped Leavers that they are exposed to the opinions of Remainers, whereas it's disadvantageous to Remainers that many of them don't get to encounter Leavers at all.
    I wonder if you then differentiate further on socioeconomic lines what the numbers will be.

    I suspect the epicentres of middle class Remainers will be even more concentrated.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,053

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD's wonderful YouGov had BXP on 37% for the Euros - they got 31%. That is some overstatement well outside the margin of error

    Yougov was actually pretty close to the final result as opposed to Survation whose final poll had Labour ahead for the European elections.

    Yougov also had the LDs correctly in second place though they underestimated the Tories and Labour a little bit

    Yep, YouGov called it pretty much spot on - except for the BXP result, which was way beyond the margin of error. With that in mind, it's worth noting that in its latest poll, Labour+LibDem+Green = 50%. That's a lot of scope for tactical voting if Johnson decides to call an early election.

    Though of course even on the actual results converted to FPTP it would have been a Brexit Party landslide outside of London and Scotland and NI
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    Sean_F said:

    isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    The cult of BoZo is every bit as mad as the cult of Corbyn.

    In contemporary politics, every side thinks they are the only sane ones. Quite awful really, diversity of opinion is not allowed, all dissenters are mentally ill or dupes.
    There was an interesting article in yesterday's Economist about Leavers and Remainers. The Remain vote is far more concentrated than the Leave vote. There are 15 constituencies where Remain won 75%+, but only one where Leave did so well. The author thought it helped Leavers that they are exposed to the opinions of Remainers, whereas it's disadvantageous to Remainers that many of them don't get to encounter Leavers at all.
    It certainly explains a lot of people's lack of empathy, but seeing as they only talk to themselves or people like them, and dismiss everyone else as some kind of -ist or mentally ill, thick or a cult member etc, they never get to realise how pompous they sound
  • Options
    kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    Sean_F said:

    kjohnw said:

    Scott_P said:
    I’m sorry but most couples row, it’s normal , he spilt wine on the sofa , they had a tiff, so what , he hasn’t beaten her up , she may have lost her temper , you wanna year my wife when I’m in the doghouse, this is all so overblown , it’s become a media feeding frenzy over a non event , with politically motivated neighbours who sold the recording to the guardian invading their neighbours basic privacy rights. Why not just call the police if you are so concerned ?? It’s a circus motivated to bring down Boris
    I don't even like Boris, but this story is shit. People argue.
    If I was Boris I would make a point of taking my girlfriend out for a walk or something in public holding hands having a laugh and showing the press that it was just a lovers tiff , and they are still good. That is all he needs to do
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,421
    Sean_F said:

    kjohnw said:

    Scott_P said:
    I’m sorry but most couples row, it’s normal , he spilt wine on the sofa , they had a tiff, so what , he hasn’t beaten her up , she may have lost her temper , you wanna year my wife when I’m in the doghouse, this is all so overblown , it’s become a media feeding frenzy over a non event , with politically motivated neighbours who sold the recording to the guardian invading their neighbours basic privacy rights. Why not just call the police if you are so concerned ?? It’s a circus motivated to bring down Boris
    I don't even like Boris, but this story is shit. People argue.
    Ssshht. It's not shit for those of us looking to make money out of it.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    kjohnw said:

    Scott_P said:
    I’m sorry but most couples row, it’s normal , he spilt wine on the sofa , they had a tiff, so what , he hasn’t beaten her up , she may have lost her temper , you wanna year my wife when I’m in the doghouse, this is all so overblown , it’s become a media feeding frenzy over a non event , with politically motivated neighbours who sold the recording to the guardian invading their neighbours basic privacy rights. Why not just call the police if you are so concerned ?? It’s a circus motivated to bring down Boris
    The neighbours were puting anti Boris posters with EU stars on them on his car windscreen. Then they recorded an argument, called the police and The Guardian... all perfectly normal
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,048

    I doubt there is anything that Boris could now do to lose. It doesn't matter that he is caught lying or recorded shouting or whatever he does tomorrow or next week. The Tory party selectorate - happy as they are to destroy the Union the economy and the party to achieve Brexit - simply do not care about anything that isn't Brexit.

    Their view is that Boris is the only option to deliver Brexit and so they will vote for Boris. Regardless of what the next scandal turns out to be.

    I like Boris, but I think he's utterly unsuited to be PM. This story - though quite amusing in a way - will only appal people who wouldn't vote for him, and it'll reinforce the views of those who would. Therefore it's made his becoming PM more likely, and any killer story about him would have to be stronger than otherwise.

    So I expect a Boris premiership, and if it somehow lasts, a few years of small successes and moderate failures that are - according to his fans (hi, HYUFD) amazing successes in a Trumpian way.

    And I won't be voting Conservative unless they have a brilliant candidate here.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    Scott_P said:
    You should try criticising O'Brien on twitter if you to see what a cult looks like
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    edited June 2019

    At the next GE, Labour and the the Tories will be offering us the choice of two lazy racists who do not believe they should be subjected to scrutiny. No wonder other parties are doing so well currently.

    Are you saying Farage is a racist who works hard?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD's wonderful YouGov had BXP on 37% for the Euros - they got 31%. That is some overstatement well outside the margin of error

    Yougov was actually pretty close to the final result as opposed to Survation whose final poll had Labour ahead for the European elections.

    Yougov also had the LDs correctly in second place though they underestimated the Tories and Labour a little bit

    Yep, YouGov called it pretty much spot on - except for the BXP result, which was way beyond the margin of error. With that in mind, it's worth noting that in its latest poll, Labour+LibDem+Green = 50%. That's a lot of scope for tactical voting if Johnson decides to call an early election.

    Though of course even on the actual results converted to FPTP it would have been a Brexit Party landslide outside of London and Scotland and NI

    Yep, if my uncle was my aunt I'd be a goldfish.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,421
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Scott_P said:
    Imagine these people when the Queen can't call him in to make him PM in July!
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,289
    Boris now back in to 1.12 for Leader, 1.13 for PM.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    If your neighbours can hear you rowing after midnight loud enough to make out the words, I suspect you have forfeited your right to privacy - meanwhile lots of entertaining speculation about what "high tech equipment" these "ultra Remainer neighbours" had from the apologists....."through brick walls" - they even know the construction of the property......
    It's probably just the engineering geek in me, but there's loads of interesting questions about that. Are the flats in totally separate buildings (and hence might have brick/block party walls between them), or a subdivided house, in which case the divisions between them might be rather thin, especially if the division was done before modern fire regs.

    Doesn't really effect the facts of the incident, though.
    The neighbours said they knocked on the door implying the same building
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    isam said:

    At the next GE, Labour and the the Tories will be offering us the choice of two lazy racists who do not believe they should be subjected to scrutiny. No wonder other parties are doing so well currently.

    Are you saying Farage is a racist who works hard?

    Fair point, Farage should be thrown into that mix as well. It's worth remembering, of course, that there are a fair few racists out there who will like the choice on offer, while others will vote tactically to try to stop the racist they dislike most.

  • Options
    kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    Yes brexit means brexit and no deal is better than a bad deal except when it’s a crap TM deal . She has been the most lying evasive Tory PM we have had and certainly the worst
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    tlg86 said:

    While I have no doubt about the headline’s thrust (politically motivated), I think Fraser’s being a touch harsh here. The right to privacy is somewhat weakened if you scream so loudly it can be heard outside your property, IMO.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1142433485359112193?s=20

    Indeed. I’d say recording it is the right thing to do. If it is serious it could be used in a subsequent court case. The problem here is that we all now want to hear the tape. Should it be released to prove it exists? I don’t know.
    If your neighbours can hear you rowing after midnight loud enough to make out the words, I suspect you have forfeited your right to privacy - meanwhile lots of entertaining speculation about what "high tech equipment" these "ultra Remainer neighbours" had from the apologists....."through brick walls" - they even know the construction of the property......
    It's probably just the engineering geek in me, but there's loads of interesting questions about that. Are the flats in totally separate buildings (and hence might have brick/block party walls between them), or a subdivided house, in which case the divisions between them might be rather thin, especially if the division was done before modern fire regs.

    Doesn't really effect the facts of the incident, though.
    You can easily hear people shouting through solid brick walls, as anyone who lives in a terraced house or semi can tell you. FWIW If I heard a woman screaming "get off me" I would be worried and might well record it for evidence if I had the presence of mind.
    It is also possible that on a warm night, they had their windows open.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD's wonderful YouGov had BXP on 37% for the Euros - they got 31%. That is some overstatement well outside the margin of error

    Yougov was actually pretty close to the final result as opposed to Survation whose final poll had Labour ahead for the European elections.

    Yougov also had the LDs correctly in second place though they underestimated the Tories and Labour a little bit

    Yep, YouGov called it pretty much spot on - except for the BXP result, which was way beyond the margin of error. With that in mind, it's worth noting that in its latest poll, Labour+LibDem+Green = 50%. That's a lot of scope for tactical voting if Johnson decides to call an early election.

    Though of course even on the actual results converted to FPTP it would have been a Brexit Party landslide outside of London and Scotland and NI

    Yep, if my uncle was my aunt I'd be a goldfish.

    I know someone who's uncle is now his aunt.

    Its a phrase which might not be deemed permissible soon.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    If the left hadn't banned traditional childrens stories for being sexist/racist etc in the 80s, some of them might have read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    isam said:

    Scott_P said:
    You should try criticising O'Brien on twitter if you to see what a cult looks like
    Is there a typo in there?
This discussion has been closed.