Oh dear, Mr Brom, do grow up. I have followed this site since "Tim" was on it. I took a break from it. I don't "slag off Tories", I "slag off" (to use your limited vernacular) people with extremist or simplistic views of politics, whether right or left. You don't like my posts because you fall into that category. I dislike Brexit because it is anti-business, anti-economy, and unpatriotic (pro-Russian) IMO. I have made constructive posts on how the EU actually works, how the Conservative Party works (been a member for over 20 years, activist for 7- up until 2012, voted for Cameron) and how business interacts with politics. Brexit is incompatible with what I regard as proper Conservatism as it is destabilising and anti-business. If you have actually seen my posts you clearly have a very very unsophisticated understanding of centre right political opinion.
I've seen your posts and they are almost entirely bitter and devoid of any conservative values or sentiment (and I say that as someone with no love for the Tories). I think as someone who has been on this site a long time it is fair to call out someone who resorts to insults with almost every post they make. Thank you.
Hrumph
I disagree passionately with Nigel about the EU but otherwise I have seen nothing at all to indicate he is anything other than a committed Tory. Just because he is (in my view) utterly wrong about the EU does not make him wrong on anything or everything else. There are Eurofanatics and Eurosceptics in both the main parties.
Thank you Richard. Good to hear from someone who DOES have a more sophisticated political understanding. Maybe I should tone down my assaults or taunts on views I don't like on here, it probably does bring out the worst in me!
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Oh dear, Mr Brom, do grow up. I have followed this site since "Tim" was on it. I took a break from it. I don't "slag off Tories", I "slag off" (to use your limited vernacular) people with extremist or simplistic views of politics, whether right or left. You don't like my posts because you fall into that category. I dislike Brexit because it is anti-business, anti-economy, and unpatriotic (pro-Russian) IMO. I have made constructive posts on how the EU actually works, how the Conservative Party works (been a member for over 20 years, activist for 7- up until 2012, voted for Cameron) and how business interacts with politics. Brexit is incompatible with what I regard as proper Conservatism as it is destabilising and anti-business. If you have actually seen my posts you clearly have a very very unsophisticated understanding of centre right political opinion.
I've seen your posts and they are almost entirely bitter and devoid of any conservative values or sentiment (and I say that as someone with no love for the Tories). I think as someone who has been on this site a long time it is fair to call out someone who resorts to insults with almost every post they make. Thank you.
Hrumph
I disagree passionately with Nigel about the EU but otherwise I have seen nothing at all to indicate he is anything other than a committed Tory. Just because he is (in my view) utterly wrong about the EU does not make him wrong on anything or everything else. There are Eurofanatics and Eurosceptics in both the main parties.
Thank you Richard. Good to hear from someone who DOES have a more sophisticated political understanding. Maybe I should tone down my assaults or taunts on views I don't like on here, it probably does bring out the worst in me!
PS. I am not a Eurofanatic, just think exiting is against British (and European) interests. I am a Brexitosceptic
Oh dear, Mr Brom, do grow up. I have followed this site since "Tim" was on it. I took a break from it. I don't "slag off Tories", I "slag off" (to use your limited vernacular) people with extremist or simplistic views of politics, whether right or left. You don't like my posts because you fall into that category. I dislike Brexit because it is anti-business, anti-economy, and unpatriotic (pro-Russian) IMO. I have made constructive posts on how the EU actually works, how the Conservative Party works (been a member for over 20 years, activist for 7- up until 2012, voted for Cameron) and how business interacts with politics. Brexit is incompatible with what I regard as proper Conservatism as it is destabilising and anti-business. If you have actually seen my posts you clearly have a very very unsophisticated understanding of centre right political opinion.
I've seen your posts and they are almost entirely bitter and devoid of any conservative values or sentiment (and I say that as someone with no love for the Tories). I think as someone who has been on this site a long time it is fair to call out someone who resorts to insults with almost every post they make. Thank you.
Hrumph
I disagree passionately with Nigel about the EU but otherwise I have seen nothing at all to indicate he is anything other than a committed Tory. Just because he is (in my view) utterly wrong about the EU does not make him wrong on anything or everything else. There are Eurofanatics and Eurosceptics in both the main parties.
Thank you Richard. Good to hear from someone who DOES have a more sophisticated political understanding. Maybe I should tone down my assaults or taunts on views I don't like on here, it probably does bring out the worst in me!
But if you set a good example then we would all have to follow and that would be terrible.
Taunting views and taunting posters are very different things and I think it is only the latter that are bad form. Something I still have to work on.
Oh dear, Mr Brom, do grow up. I have followed this site since "Tim" was on it. I took a break from it. I don't "slag off Tories", I "slag off" (to use your limited vernacular) people with extremist or simplistic views of politics, whether right or left. You don't like my posts because you fall into that category. I dislike Brexit because it is anti-business, anti-economy, and unpatriotic (pro-Russian) IMO. I have made constructive posts on how the EU actually works, how the Conservative Party works (been a member for over 20 years, activist for 7- up until 2012, voted for Cameron) and how business interacts with politics. Brexit is incompatible with what I regard as proper Conservatism as it is destabilising and anti-business. If you have actually seen my posts you clearly have a very very unsophisticated understanding of centre right political opinion.
I've seen your posts and they are almost entirely bitter and devoid of any conservative values or sentiment (and I say that as someone with no love for the Tories). I think as someone who has been on this site a long time it is fair to call out someone who resorts to insults with almost every post they make. Thank you.
Surely making bitter and negative posts devoid of any uplifting sentiment is conclusive proof that he is indeed a Tory?
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't both gone bonkers at the same time.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
FWIW the fact that Boris does a bit of modelling on the side is the first endearing thing I’ve heard him say in recent weeks. Makes him seem more human.
I do a bit myself and it’s very therapeutic.
I used to, but a lot less since I started knitting, which is much more portable.
I'm assuming there aren't any other knitters on here since no-one has mentioned Ravelry's Trump ban.
So have I got it right that Boris is back-peddling on his promise to give me a large tax cut? Boooo! What is the point in me being a conservative* if he isn't going to give me wodges of cash?
In other news. He doesn't need to answer any questions. He will deliver Brexit and that is all that matters. That he can't say how also isn't of concern, a fresh election in October will deliver a Con/BXP coalition to deliver the immediate no deal that Tory members desire.
So have I got it right that Boris is back-peddling on his promise to give me a large tax cut? Boooo! What is the point in me being a conservative* if he isn't going to give me wodges of cash?
In other news. He doesn't need to answer any questions. He will deliver Brexit and that is all that matters. That he can't say how also isn't of concern, a fresh election in October will deliver a Con/BXP coalition to deliver the immediate no deal that Tory members desire.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
I'm not totally sure about this new "Why Don't You?" presenter they've got. I'm all for inclusivity, but he seems like a bit of a simpleton to me. I just hope they don't allow him to use the Pritt Stick and safety scissors unsupervised.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't both gone bonkers at the same time.
Later in that video, Boris refers to his hero Pericles (which those of us who rewatched When Boris Met Dave last night will recall from that programme) coining the phrase, For the many, not the few.
Had the belief that Boris’ photo was staged reached Gina Miller ‘might as well have put a bone through her nose’ levels of gullible & incorrect confirmation bias yet?
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Pro-single currency and single market Thatcher, perhaps, before she underwent one of the most remarkable conversions since Pauline. There's a reason the early Brexiteers were called the Bruges Group.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Europhiles are the NUM threatening to bring down the government if they get challenged
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
FWIW the fact that Boris does a bit of modelling on the side is the first endearing thing I’ve heard him say in recent weeks. Makes him seem more human.
I do a bit myself and it’s very therapeutic.
Blimey the things you read on PB - You and Boris modelling on the catwalk ....
Armani, Dior, Versace, Peacocks, George at ASDA ????
Broadly on topic, the problem with the recall Act is within Section 1 it equates expenses fraud to criminal acts which dictate a custodial sentence of less than a year and suspension from the Commons for, as I recall, a period longer than 14 days.
People looking from outside might find the juxtaposition of these types of wrongdoing curious but I suppose for MPs themselves and especially in the light of the scandal of 2009, it was seen as vital to treat expenses fraud with the utmost seriousness.
I entirely agree and accept what Chris Davies has been convicted of is wholly insubstantial in comparison to what Fiona Onasanya did but as the Recall law Section 1 stands, they are comparable. I presume the threshold of 10% is an attempt to ensure the most trivial of offences didn't trigger a by-election but the fact remains well-organised opposition party machines and a little local indignation can go a long way if you only need 10%.
Yes, and I think the Tories have made the right decision letting Davies run again. He'll probably lose anyway, but at least he can make the case to constituents as to why they shouldn't ditch him.
Perhaps had Fiona Onasanya pleaded guilty - on the basis of perverting her brother's justice rather than her own - then there might just have been a way out of it for her. Given what's turned up on the new Peterborough MP that might have been better for Labour.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
That's genuinely the psychology behind Brexit for a lot of people who haven't come to terms with the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany.
Broadly on topic, the problem with the recall Act is within Section 1 it equates expenses fraud to criminal acts which dictate a custodial sentence of less than a year and suspension from the Commons for, as I recall, a period longer than 14 days.
People looking from outside might find the juxtaposition of these types of wrongdoing curious but I suppose for MPs themselves and especially in the light of the scandal of 2009, it was seen as vital to treat expenses fraud with the utmost seriousness.
I entirely agree and accept what Chris Davies has been convicted of is wholly insubstantial in comparison to what Fiona Onasanya did but as the Recall law Section 1 stands, they are comparable. I presume the threshold of 10% is an attempt to ensure the most trivial of offences didn't trigger a by-election but the fact remains well-organised opposition party machines and a little local indignation can go a long way if you only need 10%.
Yes, and I think the Tories have made the right decision letting Davies run again. He'll probably lose anyway, but at least he can make the case to constituents as to why they shouldn't ditch him.
Perhaps had Fiona Onasanya pleaded guilty - on the basis of perverting her brother's justice rather than her own - then there might just have been a way out of it for her. Given what's turned up on the new Peterborough MP that might have been better for Labour.
FWIW the fact that Boris does a bit of modelling on the side is the first endearing thing I’ve heard him say in recent weeks. Makes him seem more human.
I do a bit myself and it’s very therapeutic.
Blimey the things you read on PB - You and Boris modelling on the catwalk ....
Armani, Dior, Versace, Peacocks, George at ASDA ????
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Broadly on topic, the problem with the recall Act is within Section 1 it equates expenses fraud to criminal acts which dictate a custodial sentence of less than a year and suspension from the Commons for, as I recall, a period longer than 14 days.
People looking from outside might find the juxtaposition of these types of wrongdoing curious but I suppose for MPs themselves and especially in the light of the scandal of 2009, it was seen as vital to treat expenses fraud with the utmost seriousness.
I entirely agree and accept what Chris Davies has been convicted of is wholly insubstantial in comparison to what Fiona Onasanya did but as the Recall law Section 1 stands, they are comparable. I presume the threshold of 10% is an attempt to ensure the most trivial of offences didn't trigger a by-election but the fact remains well-organised opposition party machines and a little local indignation can go a long way if you only need 10%.
Yes, and I think the Tories have made the right decision letting Davies run again. He'll probably lose anyway, but at least he can make the case to constituents as to why they shouldn't ditch him.
Perhaps had Fiona Onasanya pleaded guilty - on the basis of perverting her brother's justice rather than her own - then there might just have been a way out of it for her. Given what's turned up on the new Peterborough MP that might have been better for Labour.
The defence is that she liked a post without reading the small print. If TSE would please keep up, that defence is the same one since used for Jeremy Hunt which is probably why CCHQ has gone a bit quiet on the matter.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
That's genuinely the psychology behind Brexit for a lot of people who haven't come to terms with the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany.
It is as accurate as the idea that Brexit is the modern day Miners Strike.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.
Fool. We have been prevented from eating straight bananas. That alone justifies Brexit.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Careful Charles, you're talking about someone who was a victim of John Worboys.
Broadly on topic, the problem with the recall Act is within Section 1 it equates expenses fraud to criminal acts which dictate a custodial sentence of less than a year and suspension from the Commons for, as I recall, a period longer than 14 days.
People looking from outside might find the juxtaposition of these types of wrongdoing curious but I suppose for MPs themselves and especially in the light of the scandal of 2009, it was seen as vital to treat expenses fraud with the utmost seriousness.
I entirely agree and accept what Chris Davies has been convicted of is wholly insubstantial in comparison to what Fiona Onasanya did but as the Recall law Section 1 stands, they are comparable. I presume the threshold of 10% is an attempt to ensure the most trivial of offences didn't trigger a by-election but the fact remains well-organised opposition party machines and a little local indignation can go a long way if you only need 10%.
Yes, and I think the Tories have made the right decision letting Davies run again. He'll probably lose anyway, but at least he can make the case to constituents as to why they shouldn't ditch him.
Perhaps had Fiona Onasanya pleaded guilty - on the basis of perverting her brother's justice rather than her own - then there might just have been a way out of it for her. Given what's turned up on the new Peterborough MP that might have been better for Labour.
The defence is that she liked a post without reading the small print. If TSE would please keep up, that defence is the same one since used for Jeremy Hunt which is probably why CCHQ has gone a bit quiet on the matter.
Once is understandable, several times is a pattern.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Careful Charles, you're talking about someone who was a victim of John Worboys.
I am good friends with a victim of John Worboys, and she is a demanding and volatile young woman.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Careful Charles, you're talking about someone who was a victim of John Worboys.
I am good friends with a victim of John Worboys, and she is a demanding and volatile young woman.
More back of a fag packet stuff. He really is hopeless. He makes TMay look like a consummate leader. I used to think he would be fun to have a piss up in brewery with, but I don't think he could even manage that.
Good luck Tories! You are about to saddle yourselves with an albatross.
The majority of the Conservative membership don't care. Boris might roll up and spout complete drivel 24/7 and still get elected as leader, which is clearly frustrating for sounder Conservatives including those Tory PBers not on the Boris cheerleader list.
There is a Trumpian level of delusion among Borisian supporters who just cover their ears and shout La La La as Boris La La Land looms ever closer.
I just hope there will be a party left to save at the end of it
There will always be a place for a centre-right political party in the UK. Whether it will be called the Conservative Party is less certain and certainly not something that one would have expected to say after the 2015 election.
Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.
I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.
I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.
Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.
Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.
The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.
Voluntary coming together of Governments is more accurate than peoples. This has always been a project of the governing classes rather than the general populations. And on that basis the USSR is good analogy given that the 4 main soviets joined together voluntarily in 1922.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Careful Charles, you're talking about someone who was a victim of John Worboys.
I am good friends with a victim of John Worboys, and she is a demanding and volatile young woman.
Not everybody is the same.
Don’t really get what that means, but we can leave it there
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.
Voluntary coming together of Governments is more accurate than peoples. This has always been a project of the governing classes rather than the general populations.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.
Hmm. Your attitude helps to explain why there are so many male victims of domestic abuse (they make up more than a third of the total) and yet so few reports or prosecutions. Automatically blaming the man is just as bad as automatically blaming the woman.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.
Hmm. Your attitude helps to explain why there are so many male victims of domestic abuse (they make up more than a third of the total) and yet so few reports or prosecutions. Automatically blaming the man is just as bad as automatically blaming the woman.
I haven't automatically blamed anyone. Charles automatically blamed the woman.
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.
Voluntary coming together of Governments is more accurate than peoples. This has always been a project of the governing classes rather than the general populations.
Open your eyes.
LOL. How far down has the figure for attendance been revised now? I have lost track. Fanatics marching through the streets of London do not represent the majority will of the people.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.
Hmm. Your attitude helps to explain why there are so many male victims of domestic abuse (they make up more than a third of the total) and yet so few reports or prosecutions. Automatically blaming the man is just as bad as automatically blaming the woman.
When Layla Moran admitted to slapping her boyfriend, people let her off. Boris hasn’t been accused of anything, and is guilty as implied
Seems some are just programmed to see women as victims
If only we had a rich royal family who could fund themselves independently instead of choosing a family on benefits.
The Crown Estate (plus the Duchies) dos of course generate hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the Exchequer, plus a substantial increase in capital value.
If they generate all this money for the Exchequer, they are by extension earning it. All the more reasons why they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for luxurious living standards. Very bad PR for the Royals
I don't think there's any tab for the taxpayer to keep up. I believe they are now funded out of the profits of the estate only?
The direct profits of the Duchies are applied to some of the costs of the monarchy, whereas the tax paid from the Duchies, plus the Crown Estate, are I believe remitted to the Treasury and then a contribution to Buckingham Palace and Balmoral and state events is passed back.
If you think of the Crown Estate as an asset of the monarchy, then 'the monarchy' runs at a profit. If you think the Crown Estate and the Duchies are public resources, clearly it runs at a loss. It's sort of immaterial.
I believe there’s no question that the Duchies are the private property of the Elizabeth Windsor and her son respectively.
The Crown Estates were historically the private property of the Monarch - more if a grey area as to whether they should be deemed state property
Broadly on topic, the problem with the recall Act is within Section 1 it equates expenses fraud to criminal acts which dictate a custodial sentence of less than a year and suspension from the Commons for, as I recall, a period longer than 14 days.
People looking from outside might find the juxtaposition of these types of wrongdoing curious but I suppose for MPs themselves and especially in the light of the scandal of 2009, it was seen as vital to treat expenses fraud with the utmost seriousness.
I entirely agree and accept what Chris Davies has been convicted of is wholly insubstantial in comparison to what Fiona Onasanya did but as the Recall law Section 1 stands, they are comparable. I presume the threshold of 10% is an attempt to ensure the most trivial of offences didn't trigger a by-election but the fact remains well-organised opposition party machines and a little local indignation can go a long way if you only need 10%.
Yes, and I think the Tories have made the right decision letting Davies run again. He'll probably lose anyway, but at least he can make the case to constituents as to why they shouldn't ditch him.
Perhaps had Fiona Onasanya pleaded guilty - on the basis of perverting her brother's justice rather than her own - then there might just have been a way out of it for her. Given what's turned up on the new Peterborough MP that might have been better for Labour.
What’s turned up on the new MP?
1 August is an intensely stupid day for a by-election - most people will be away on holiday. Dumb.
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.
Voluntary coming together of Governments is more accurate than peoples. This has always been a project of the governing classes rather than the general populations.
Open your eyes.
LOL. How far down has the figure for attendance been revised now? I have lost track. Fanatics marching through the streets of London do not represent the majority will of the people.
It hasn't been revised down at all. The methodology used for the lower number was comprehensively debunked and proven to be a significant underestimate.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.
Hmm. Your attitude helps to explain why there are so many male victims of domestic abuse (they make up more than a third of the total) and yet so few reports or prosecutions. Automatically blaming the man is just as bad as automatically blaming the woman.
I haven't automatically blamed anyone. Charles automatically blamed the woman.
Nope. He has opined that she might have been the aggressor. You have claimed that saying that made him a bully. It is you who are being unreasonable here.
Personally given his record of threatened violence, if asked to make a choice I would say it was more likely Boris was the guilty party. But that does not dismiss the possibility that it was his partner. And saying such does not make Charles in any way a bully.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.
Hmm. Your attitude helps to explain why there are so many male victims of domestic abuse (they make up more than a third of the total) and yet so few reports or prosecutions. Automatically blaming the man is just as bad as automatically blaming the woman.
When Layla Moran admitted to slapping her boyfriend, people let her off. Boris hasn’t been accused of anything, and is guilty as implied
Seems some are just programmed to see women as victims
I didn't let her off. I think it rightly disqualifies her from leading her party and, arguably, as an MP.
If only we had a rich royal family who could fund themselves independently instead of choosing a family on benefits.
The Crown Estate (plus the Duchies) dos of course generate hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the Exchequer, plus a substantial increase in capital value.
If they generate all this money for the Exchequer, they are by extension earning it. All the more reasons why they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for luxurious living standards. Very bad PR for the Royals
I don't think there's any tab for the taxpayer to keep up. I believe they are now funded out of the profits of the estate only?
The direct profits of the Duchies are applied to some of the costs of the monarchy, whereas the tax paid from the Duchies, plus the Crown Estate, are I believe remitted to the Treasury and then a contribution to Buckingham Palace and Balmoral and state events is passed back.
If you think of the Crown Estate as an asset of the monarchy, then 'the monarchy' runs at a profit. If you think the Crown Estate and the Duchies are public resources, clearly it runs at a loss. It's sort of immaterial.
I believe there’s no question that the Duchies are the private property of the Elizabeth Windsor and her son respectively.
The Crown Estates were historically the private property of the Monarch - more if a grey area as to whether they should be deemed state property
The Duchies are run separately
Out of interest (and OTT, sorry), since it's closer to your line of business, Charles, what's your view on the wider implications of the Swiss securities delisting?
Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.
The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.
Voluntary coming together of Governments is more accurate than peoples. This has always been a project of the governing classes rather than the general populations.
Open your eyes.
LOL. How far down has the figure for attendance been revised now? I have lost track. Fanatics marching through the streets of London do not represent the majority will of the people.
It hasn't been revised down at all. The methodology used for the lower number was comprehensively debunked and proven to be a significant underestimate.
Really? It was originally claimed there were a million people on the march. According to Fullfact that is now down to between 312,000 and 400,000. That is what I call revising down.
There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length
That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.
Hmm. Your attitude helps to explain why there are so many male victims of domestic abuse (they make up more than a third of the total) and yet so few reports or prosecutions. Automatically blaming the man is just as bad as automatically blaming the woman.
I haven't automatically blamed anyone. Charles automatically blamed the woman.
Nope. He has opined that she might have been the aggressor. You have claimed that saying that made him a bully. It is you who are being unreasonable here.
Personally given his record of threatened violence, if asked to make a choice I would say it was more likely Boris was the guilty party. But that does not dismiss the possibility that it was his partner. And saying such does not make Charles in any way a bully.
They were weasel words: "I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman". It is framing the issue in terms of it was her fault and hence she was to blame is the natural conclusion. Boris is the one with the power and Charles was reinforcing a narrative which favoured that power over Symonds. That is bullying.
Comments
Margaret Thatcher
Surely making bitter and negative posts devoid of any uplifting sentiment is conclusive proof that he is indeed a Tory?
An excellent "dead cat"!
I'm assuming there aren't any other knitters on here since no-one has mentioned Ravelry's Trump ban.
In other news. He doesn't need to answer any questions. He will deliver Brexit and that is all that matters. That he can't say how also isn't of concern, a fresh election in October will deliver a Con/BXP coalition to deliver the immediate no deal that Tory members desire.
Later in that video, Boris refers to his hero Pericles (which those of us who rewatched When Boris Met Dave last night will recall from that programme) coining the phrase, For the many, not the few.
I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/104405/jewish-labour-movement-calls-party-suspend-new
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1144294/boris-johnson-girlfriend-carrie-symonds-police-tory-leadership-race
How would you feel about President Farage or President Corbyn?
The country has done very well out of that deal
We cannot get rid of the House of Windsor.
It is raining.
It may not be the Conservative Party
Seems some are just programmed to see women as victims
The Crown Estates were historically the private property of the Monarch - more if a grey area as to whether they should be deemed state property
The Duchies are run separately
Personally given his record of threatened violence, if asked to make a choice I would say it was more likely Boris was the guilty party. But that does not dismiss the possibility that it was his partner. And saying such does not make Charles in any way a bully.
NEW THREAD