Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
Belgrano....
Er no.
Westland, according to her official biographer. And that was to Parliament.
I don't think the WW2 analogy is correct in this case - at the end of WW2 it was clear who had won and who had lost and the defeated were crushed - they had little choice but to accept their defeat - they could not continue the struggle. But the forces for and against Brexit are much more evenly matched - neither side is likely to crush the other in the near future, and unless that happens the struggle will continue.
And the chances of "leaving in an orderly fashion," already pretty minimal IMO, get smaller each time a leadership candidate opens his mouth.
I can't say I'm too optimistic but my scenario is predicated on us leaving via a deal into a lengthy transition period in which to negotiate the new relationship.
In that case I think there is a good chance that a great deal of the political and cultural poison from the issue will be drained off. The 'Brexit Crisis' - the one that is right now paralysing our politics and threatening to tear the country apart - will be over.
My main point, however, is to make the distinction between the event of Brexit (leaving) and the ongoing process and ramifications of Brexit (the future relationship talks and the impact on the country over time).
Just because the latter will be important and ongoing for ever and a day does not mean that the former cannot be a meaningful end of the crisis. I think it can be and this, for me, is the USP of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Ratifying the WA would probably be worse than no deal or remain from a political standpoint (though not an economic one of course). Farage and the ultras would scream betrayal, and remainers would not be happy because we had left. Hardly anybody would have got what they want, whereas if we remain or no deal then a pretty sizeable proportion of the country would have got their desired result.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
Belgrano....
Er no.
Westland, according to her official biographer. And that was to Parliament.
Debatable.
Indeed it is. I'm not convinced Charles Moore is a reliable source for anything, but he was her official biographer. The Belgrano was more an attempt to mislead Parliament, which failed.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
“Almost unique” is a phrase that makes my teeth grate.
You are unique. Or you are not.
There is no “almost”
I disagree.
Certainly, there is a binary distinction between 'unique' and 'not unique', but 'almost unique' has its place too.
In the absence of a useful word to mean "one of only '2|3|4 etc' examples", 'almost unique' helpfully implies 'extremely rare but not unique', especially when the example is out of a large set.
Strange. You can be almost dead but not almost pregnant. And if you can be almost unique can you also be almost not unique?
Why can't you be almost pregnant?
Surely the period during which the sperm is swimming towards the egg, but has not yet - errr - joined with it counts as "almost pregnant".
No, because of the uncertainty involved. That would be more like a Schroedinger pregnancy.
It might be a valid description of the situation in retrospect - once the pregnancy was known - but not at the time.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
I guess Eden must have knowingly made untrue statements to Parliament about Suez?
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
That is an incredibly strange rose tinted version of history! Politicians lie, it is a job requirement.
Londoners poorer than most British regions, only NE significantly poorer. Shows the lie about the metropolitan elite. People in cities are more educated and younger, not elites.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
Did Major not fib about his affair ?
Rare != Non-existent
I'm sure even the most resolutely moral of our former PMs would occasionally have made utterances that failed the truth test.
"I love your new haircut." "Your mother is just wonderful." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "It's lovely to see you again."
Etc.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Londoners poorer than most British regions, only NE significantly poorer. Shows the lie about the metropolitan elite. People in cities are more educated and younger, not elites.
Increasingly rich people move out of london....many still work there though.
Whilst that is clearly true, it will also be the case that far fewer 20 and 30 somethings in London will ever move out as rich people than previous cohorts.
If the metropolitan elite is actually wealthy people who have moved out to live in shire towns in the home counties perhaps a new descriptor could be used.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
President Trump redefines words too. He just doesn't explain when he's doing it.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
Did Major not fib about his affair ?
Rare != Non-existent
I'm sure even the most resolutely moral of our former PMs would occasionally have made utterances that failed the truth test.
"I love your new haircut." "Your mother is just wonderful." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "It's lovely to see you again."
Etc.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
"From the files, we learn new things about Thatcher and the miners' strike. It was the well-rehearsed case of the government and the National Coal Board that they wanted to close 20 pits. When the miners' leader, Arthur Scargill, said that was the thin end of the wedge, he was variously depicted as wicked or soft in the head. But the documents reveal a plan to shut 75 mines over three years. Her reputation, finely honed and widely circulated, was for straight-talking. Was she straight with the electorate over the mines?"
Is publicly claiming 20 and privately planning 75 a bare faced lie?
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
Did Major not fib about his affair ?
Rare != Non-existent
I'm sure even the most resolutely moral of our former PMs would occasionally have made utterances that failed the truth test.
"I love your new haircut." "Your mother is just wonderful." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "It's lovely to see you again."
Etc.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Boris has taken it to a new level. He essentially invented fake news with the crap he writes.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
President Trump redefines words too. He just doesn't explain when he's doing it.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
“Almost unique” is a phrase that makes my teeth grate.
You are unique. Or you are not.
There is no “almost”
I don't like it either. But still worse is:
"one of the only..."
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
Don't they say that super-brainy people, when responding to a question quickly rehearse the several arguments and the logic and reasoning internally before they open their mouths, at which point, they have already done the "proof" in their mind and hence start what they say, the final element of the answer, with "so...".
“Almost unique” is a phrase that makes my teeth grate.
You are unique. Or you are not.
There is no “almost”
I don't like it either. But still worse is:
"one of the only..."
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
Don't they say that super-brainy people, when responding to a question quickly rehearse the several arguments and the logic and reasoning internally before they open their mouths, at which point, they have already done the "proof" in their mind and hence start what they say, the final element of the answer, with "so...".
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
President Trump redefines words too. He just doesn't explain when he's doing it.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Theresa May has achieved the seemingly impossible feat of having a career in the Tory party during the Hague/IDS era, followed by being PM in the aftermath of Brexit, without her private views on Europe ever being discernable.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
Did Major not fib about his affair ?
Rare != Non-existent
I'm sure even the most resolutely moral of our former PMs would occasionally have made utterances that failed the truth test.
"I love your new haircut." "Your mother is just wonderful." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "It's lovely to see you again."
Etc.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Vote Leave took sophistry over the word "is" to a new level.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
Did Major not fib about his affair ?
Rare != Non-existent
I'm sure even the most resolutely moral of our former PMs would occasionally have made utterances that failed the truth test.
"I love your new haircut." "Your mother is just wonderful." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "It's lovely to see you again."
Etc.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
"From the files, we learn new things about Thatcher and the miners' strike. It was the well-rehearsed case of the government and the National Coal Board that they wanted to close 20 pits. When the miners' leader, Arthur Scargill, said that was the thin end of the wedge, he was variously depicted as wicked or soft in the head. But the documents reveal a plan to shut 75 mines over three years. Her reputation, finely honed and widely circulated, was for straight-talking. Was she straight with the electorate over the mines?"
Is publicly claiming 20 and privately planning 75 a bare faced lie?
Or denying she would double VAT (it went from 8 to 15 per cent).
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
President Trump redefines words too. He just doesn't explain when he's doing it.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Yes and he actually has real private views and it's clear what he really believes. Trump is a populist but not an unprincipled opportunist. Bojo, on the other hand, has no core beliefs. He is both a populist and an unprincipled opportunist.
The presumption is that Farage would be keen to do a deal with Johnson and go into coalition with him. On the evidence of yesterday, he’s not planning to make it easy for him: “Mr Johnson, you can try if you want to, but I will not be put back in my box by you or anybody else.”
First, he made clear that any version of Theresa May’s deal that Boris manages to pass, however amended, will be declared a betrayal and will serve to supercharge the Brexit Party: “It’s not a deal, its Monsieur Barnier’s new European Treaty… it must never pass in this country.” ....
Farage has worked out Boris Johnson’s greatest potential weakness among this audience: he’s a quintessential metropolitan liberal.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Sexual relations might be a generational thing. BJs and the thing with the cigar were what was called heavy petting, and did not count as sex in the eyes of God for annulling marriages or getting pregnant.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
President Trump redefines words too. He just doesn't explain when he's doing it.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Yes and he actually has real private views and it's clear what he really believes. Trump is a populist but not an unprincipled opportunist. Bojo, on the other hand, has no core beliefs. He is both a populist and an unprincipled opportunist.
Yes he will lie less than Trump (not difficult, probably applies to >99% of the population), but beyond believing in privilege and power for Boris there is no clarity about his beliefs. I doubt he even thinks Brexit is a good idea ffs.
The presumption is that Farage would be keen to do a deal with Johnson and go into coalition with him. On the evidence of yesterday, he’s not planning to make it easy for him: “Mr Johnson, you can try if you want to, but I will not be put back in my box by you or anybody else.”
First, he made clear that any version of Theresa May’s deal that Boris manages to pass, however amended, will be declared a betrayal and will serve to supercharge the Brexit Party: “It’s not a deal, its Monsieur Barnier’s new European Treaty… it must never pass in this country.” ....
Farage has worked out Boris Johnson’s greatest potential weakness among this audience: he’s a quintessential metropolitan liberal.
One by one, the Danes are finding out the problem with Danegeld.
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
So, that's just an alternative to 'well'.
So the reason for that is the way American teenagers and students begin their replies to queries and messages on the internet.
It’s a public speaking thing. A need to fill pauses and dead air with noise. Just pause, say nothing and start. Anyone can pick this up in an afternoon or two.
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
So, that's just an alternative to 'well'.
So the reason for that is the way American teenagers and students begin their replies to queries and messages on the internet.
It’s a public speaking thing. A need to fill pauses and dead air with noise. Just pause, say nothing and start. Anyone can pick this up in an afternoon or two.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
President Trump redefines words too. He just doesn't explain when he's doing it.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Yes and he actually has real private views and it's clear what he really believes. Trump is a populist but not an unprincipled opportunist. Bojo, on the other hand, has no core beliefs. He is both a populist and an unprincipled opportunist.
Trump is opprtunistic, but you're right not as opportunistic. On the other hand Trump is very considerably a bully, both in public and in private, whereas Johnson is a partial bully behind closed doors. The qualities of bullying and domination often tend to go with overdetermination of your view rather than the other way round.
Ratifying the WA would probably be worse than no deal or remain from a political standpoint (though not an economic one of course). Farage and the ultras would scream betrayal, and remainers would not be happy because we had left. Hardly anybody would have got what they want, whereas if we remain or no deal then a pretty sizeable proportion of the country would have got their desired result.
Maybe so. But I don't see it quite that way. I think after a while (and not so long either) that 80% of people would 'move on' leaving around 10% each on either fringe - a Rejoin movement and a National Populist movement. I think the latter is coming anyway (probably led by Farage) and it would be all the more potent if we go the 2nd ref and remain route. No Deal, OTOH, would be utter madness and really must not happen. Therefore I am left rooting for the WA.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Sexual relations might be a generational thing. BJs and the thing with the cigar were what was called heavy petting, and did not count as sex in the eyes of God for annulling marriages or getting pregnant.
Hmm.... it's not God's views that matter but what your spouse thinks.
"Darling, I've been putting cigars in the strangest places and giving and getting oral sex but I'm a faithful husband/wife, honest."
That's more than sophistry. It's plain insulting, to both your spouse and lover.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
Did Major not fib about his affair ?
He wasn't asked. So he operated "in good faith" (he answered questions honestly) but not "in utmost good faith" (he did not volunteer relevant information unasked). So it depends on what standard you expect a PM to observe.
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
So, that's just an alternative to 'well'.
So the reason for that is the way American teenagers and students begin their replies to queries and messages on the internet.
It’s a public speaking thing. A need to fill pauses and dead air with noise. Just pause, say nothing and start. Anyone can pick this up in an afternoon or two.
I think that's more the pausing, English "so ..." In the current American-originated usage, it comes out as an enthusiastic opener, to keep things running along faster , more smoothly, with the idea that more explanation is always going to be something positive and constructive, or invigorating. It's more an intent to be helpful or emphatic.
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
So, that's just an alternative to 'well'.
So the reason for that is the way American teenagers and students begin their replies to queries and messages on the internet.
It’s a public speaking thing. A need to fill pauses and dead air with noise. Just pause, say nothing and start. Anyone can pick this up in an afternoon or two.
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
So, that's just an alternative to 'well'.
So the reason for that is the way American teenagers and students begin their replies to queries and messages on the internet.
It’s a public speaking thing. A need to fill pauses and dead air with noise. Just pause, say nothing and start. Anyone can pick this up in an afternoon or two.
"Good morning. My name is X and this is my lecture on Y. [click to next slide]. We will cover the following..."
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Sexual relations might be a generational thing. BJs and the thing with the cigar were what was called heavy petting, and did not count as sex in the eyes of God for annulling marriages or getting pregnant.
Hmm.... it's not God's views that matter but what your spouse thinks.
"Darling, I've been putting cigars in the strangest places and giving and getting oral sex but I'm a faithful husband/wife, honest."
That's more than sophistry. It's plain insulting, to both your spouse and lover.
Nonetheless, that is a distinction that used to be drawn in the 1950s and before (ie before the contraceptive pill was invented in the 1960s and erased the line between what could and could not get you pregnant). Of course Clinton's answer was intended to mislead but for that reason, I'd have it as sophistry rather than lying.
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
So, that's just an alternative to 'well'.
So the reason for that is the way American teenagers and students begin their replies to queries and messages on the internet.
It’s a public speaking thing. A need to fill pauses and dead air with noise. Just pause, say nothing and start. Anyone can pick this up in an afternoon or two.
If the WA is ratified Farage will go phoney berserk, betrayal will be screamed from the rooftops and 25% or so of people will buy it - plenty enough to continue the Tory psycho-drama.
That's for sure. But his 'movement' (which IMO is coming anyway) will be much more aided and abetted by Ref2/Remain.
If we leave with the WA and Farage is reinforced just enough to plague the Tories for several years, as opposed to being turbo-charged to an extent that gives him a shot at power, then this, for me, would be the best of the various poor outcomes that are possible from here.
“Almost unique” is a phrase that makes my teeth grate.
You are unique. Or you are not.
There is no “almost”
I don't like it either. But still worse is:
"one of the only..."
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
Don't they say that super-brainy people, when responding to a question quickly rehearse the several arguments and the logic and reasoning internally before they open their mouths, at which point, they have already done the "proof" in their mind and hence start what they say, the final element of the answer, with "so...".
Repeat the person's question back at him: "So you want to know what the effect of X is. That's an interesting question. I think the answer is..." and by that time you'v said that you usually have an idea of what you're going to say, even if it's "I don't know" or "I'll get back to you"
If the WA is ratified Farage will go phoney berserk, betrayal will be screamed from the rooftops and 25% or so of people will buy it - plenty enough to continue the Tory psycho-drama.
That's for sure. But his 'movement' (which IMO is coming anyway) will be much more aided and abetted by Ref2/Remain.
If there's Ref2 and a Remain win, Remain will be the will of the people. The SNP effect he was hoping for after a narrow loss in 2016 wouldn't work the same way following a second referendum where everyone is suffering from a Brexit overdose.
We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
Nobody is listening to Ivan Rogers: if we aim to be like Switzerland (FTA, special partnership, all that stuff lying Dan Hannan waxes about), and actually achieve it, we will spend the rest of our days negotiating with the EU, all day, every day.
We will not move on from Brexit until we revoke or rejoin.
Yes. But for Switzerland, the EU is a chronic disease. They talk and they talk. And there are changes. But they are mostly imperceptible.
Switzerland has mastered gradualism. There are changes every year. (And not all in one direction, I would note.)
And because each change is so small, it doesn't utterly dominate politics to the exclusion of all other issues.
The EU didn't utterly dominate politics until we started trying to leave it. The best "quiet life" option is membership.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
Did Major not fib about his affair ?
Rare != Non-existent
I'm sure even the most resolutely moral of our former PMs would occasionally have made utterances that failed the truth test.
"I love your new haircut." "Your mother is just wonderful." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "It's lovely to see you again."
Etc.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Boris has taken it to a new level. He essentially invented fake news with the crap he writes.
"Boris Johnson invented fake news" is of course itself, fake news.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Trump's lying is that of the autocratic bully taking the piss. He does not seek to hide the fact that he IS lying. It is part of the attraction for him - and (to the reprehensibles who support him) OF him.
"Look," he says to his opponents, "I'm lying and I know it - and I know that you know it - and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because my base loves me. I'm untouchable. I don't need to respect the norms and so I don't, and I won't."
Regarding Bill Clinton and his infidelities. I'm assuming that Hillary read Primary Colors, which (if I recall correctly) starts with the protagonist cheating on his wife.
That should - even before Ms Lewinsky - have been a hint to Ms Clinton that her husband might not have been entirely faithful.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Trump's lying is that of the autocratic bully taking the piss. He does not seek to hide the fact that he IS lying. It is part of the attraction for him - and (to the reprehensibles who support him) OF him.
"Look," he says to his opponents, "I'm lying and I know it - and I know that you know it - and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because my base loves me. I'm untouchable. I don't need to respect the norms and so I don't, and I won't."
It is a way to humiliate.
I would also take issue with the whole "he's more honest" schtick that some people have come up with.
Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that many people believe what he says. The lying serves a deliberate purpose: it makes it hard for people to distinguish truth from falsehood. People then throw their hands up complaining it's all too hard, and conclude that everyone is lying.
When, in fact, there is one - and only one - person actively lying and dissembling.
We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
Nobody is listening to Ivan Rogers: if we aim to be like Switzerland (FTA, special partnership, all that stuff lying Dan Hannan waxes about), and actually achieve it, we will spend the rest of our days negotiating with the EU, all day, every day.
We will not move on from Brexit until we revoke or rejoin.
Yes. But for Switzerland, the EU is a chronic disease. They talk and they talk. And there are changes. But they are mostly imperceptible.
Switzerland has mastered gradualism. There are changes every year. (And not all in one direction, I would note.)
And because each change is so small, it doesn't utterly dominate politics to the exclusion of all other issues.
The EU didn't utterly dominate politics until we started trying to leave it. The best "quiet life" option is membership.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Trump's lying is that of the autocratic bully taking the piss. He does not seek to hide the fact that he IS lying. It is part of the attraction for him - and (to the reprehensibles who support him) OF him.
"Look," he says to his opponents, "I'm lying and I know it - and I know that you know it - and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because my base loves me. I'm untouchable. I don't need to respect the norms and so I don't, and I won't."
It is a way to humiliate.
That is part of it, but I think it is more simple. He sees no advantages to telling the truth and has no moral compass to guide him to so lying becomes the default rather than exception.
Hunt hs surprised me twice over during his leadership campaign.
Firstly, in the prelims, he came across as a much stronger candidate than I was expecting, and earned his place in the final two.
Secondly, once he made the final two, he has turned totally bonkers. As others have said, perhaps trying to out-Bozo Bozo might work. If he has decided that all other options would be useless, then shit-or-bust is the way to go. If he does win, I hope it is all an act, and sane Hunt occupies No. 10.
In effect the sane wing of the Conservative party (yes there are one or two of us) are hoping that, once in office, either of the candidates turns out to have been lying like a cheap NAAFI watch.
Ironically, on that basis, the form guide would be Boris.
The interesting thing will be to find out what Johnson has been lying about. He clearly is lying, but we can't be certain how until he becomes PM.
Name the last PM that didn't lie - Mrs Thatcher ?
I think up until Blair, lying was extremely rare among our Prime Ministers. (At least in public.)
Did Major not fib about his affair ?
Rare != Non-existent
I'm sure even the most resolutely moral of our former PMs would occasionally have made utterances that failed the truth test.
"I love your new haircut." "Your mother is just wonderful." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "It's lovely to see you again."
Etc.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Boris has taken it to a new level. He essentially invented fake news with the crap he writes.
"Boris Johnson invented fake news" is of course itself, fake news.
It was Al Gore.
Note the word "essentially". It is a qualifier, but it doesn't let the lying bastard off the hook
“Almost unique” is a phrase that makes my teeth grate.
You are unique. Or you are not.
There is no “almost”
I don't like it either. But still worse is:
"one of the only..."
My pet hate is the way so many 'academic' types begin their comments with 'So...'. When did that become a thing?
Don't they say that super-brainy people, when responding to a question quickly rehearse the several arguments and the logic and reasoning internally before they open their mouths, at which point, they have already done the "proof" in their mind and hence start what they say, the final element of the answer, with "so...".
One of the thinks I hated about Blair (there are quite a few) was how he used to start any answer with "Look,..."
They are not stupid. Malevolent, perhaps, but not stupid. They know full well Boris is lying in some bits but they believe that his intent to depart by end October is sincere and liable to be carried out. And that's what they want to hear.
We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
Nobody is listening to Ivan Rogers: if we aim to be like Switzerland (FTA, special partnership, all that stuff lying Dan Hannan waxes about), and actually achieve it, we will spend the rest of our days negotiating with the EU, all day, every day.
We will not move on from Brexit until we revoke or rejoin.
Yes. But for Switzerland, the EU is a chronic disease. They talk and they talk. And there are changes. But they are mostly imperceptible.
Switzerland has mastered gradualism. There are changes every year. (And not all in one direction, I would note.)
And because each change is so small, it doesn't utterly dominate politics to the exclusion of all other issues.
The EU didn't utterly dominate politics until we started trying to leave it. The best "quiet life" option is membership.
You mean the lazy and expensive option...
Expensive? hahahahaha. Another deluded Leaver who thinks we will be better off. I assume as you don't like laziness you won't be supporting Bozo? Not a fan of David Davis either? Laziness is the route cause of Brexit. Extreme lazy thinking, with some people overly worried about their laziness threatened by people that do jobs more efficiently for lower pay.
John Bercow has blocked a fresh attempt to prevent no deal Brexit.
The speaker put a stop to the amendment masterminded by Dominic Grieve and Dame Margaret Beckett which planned to deprive key public services of funding if there was a no-deal Brexit.
I would also take issue with the whole "he's more honest" schtick that some people have come up with.
Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that many people believe what he says. The lying serves a deliberate purpose: it makes it hard for people to distinguish truth from falsehood. People then throw their hands up complaining it's all too hard, and conclude that everyone is lying.
When, in fact, there is one - and only one - person actively lying and dissembling.
Indeed. He's smart. Not much of an intellect, but smart.
The dumb and childish way that he communicates, for example, it is pitched quite deliberately at the level of his 'base'. Very effective.
He is changing (has changed) the nature of political discourse in the USA and right across the world.
He will have a big legacy even if he is (as I think he will be) a one term president.
I interpret "almost unique", in the sense Peston uses for Hammond as a sane Tory, to be a shortcut for "He's the only one I can think of right now. There may be others, but very few". Two words instead of twenty and it doesn't have quite the same meaning as "rare"
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Trump's lying is that of the autocratic bully taking the piss. He does not seek to hide the fact that he IS lying. It is part of the attraction for him - and (to the reprehensibles who support him) OF him.
"Look," he says to his opponents, "I'm lying and I know it - and I know that you know it - and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because my base loves me. I'm untouchable. I don't need to respect the norms and so I don't, and I won't."
It is a way to humiliate.
I would also take issue with the whole "he's more honest" schtick that some people have come up with.
Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that many people believe what he says. The lying serves a deliberate purpose: it makes it hard for people to distinguish truth from falsehood. People then throw their hands up complaining it's all too hard, and conclude that everyone is lying.
When, in fact, there is one - and only one - person actively lying and dissembling.
I dont think he is more honest in the whole, he is addicted to lying. There is however a paradox in there that it is easier to know what Trumps views are on his main issues such as immigration or tariffs, than Clintons views or indeed Boris' views. Despite each individual statement being a lie, it is easy to know what he thinks, in some ways that is more honest.
Democratic politics is set up to make lying necessary, collective cabinet responsibility for example involves hiding your own private view, except in cabinet, and publicly standing by the cabinet view. There is merit in this approach but it often puts politicians in a place where they have to lie.
Similarly there will be times when a politician being honest about a situation creates problems rather than helps, we do sometimes need our leaders to be optimistic to the point of lying to keep up morale and/or keep the economy going. I think Mrs Thatcher was probably right to say we would close 20 pits rather than 75, as if she had been truthful the consequences for the country would have been worse. It is a judgement call to be made, I am surprised any serious observor of politics does not expect all politicians to lie.
I interpret "almost unique", in the sense Peston uses for Hammond as a sane Tory, to be a shortcut for "He's the only one I can think of right now. There may be others, but very few". Two words instead of twenty and it doesn't have quite the same meaning as "rare"
I interpret "almost unique", in the sense Peston uses for Hammond as a sane Tory, to be a shortcut for "He's the only one I can think of right now. There may be others, but very few". Two words instead of twenty and it doesn't have quite the same meaning as "rare"
Fifty-one percent said they believe Warren is capable of defeating Trump, up from 40 percent in the prior survey. Forty-nine percent said the same of Harris, a 10 point jump from May...
They are not stupid. Malevolent, perhaps, but not stupid. They know full well Boris is lying in some bits but they believe that his intent to depart by end October is sincere and liable to be carried out. And that's what they want to hear.
I worked with a lot who were definitely idiots. I suspect it is the same with other parties too. Activism is their life and only form of "enjoyment". Then there are some are very bright, in other spheres, but when it comes to their political views they are frothing loonies. Then there are (maybe used to be) some really pleasant people with well considered balanced views who want what is best for their country. I am in no doubt that choosing a PM should not be left to unelected members of parties. Very few people seem to pick up that it is a democratic outrage.
They are not stupid. Malevolent, perhaps, but not stupid. They know full well Boris is lying in some bits but they believe that his intent to depart by end October is sincere and liable to be carried out. And that's what they want to hear.
No, they know or realise the only way to maintain the Conservative Party in power is to get the UK out of the EU by any means, WA or no WA, on 31/10. Any further delay risks not just a 97 style defeat but something far worse - an existential defeat which could see them supplanted as the leading centre-right force by TBP.
It's pure unadulterated self-preservation that beings them to Boris - take Matt Hancock, he has been politically emasculated but he will swallow whatever rubbish Boris offers because that's the only way to save his political career. He could survive almost any political tsunami but what use being one of a handful of survivors on the political fringes?
If there's Ref2 and a Remain win, Remain will be the will of the people. The SNP effect he was hoping for after a narrow loss in 2016 wouldn't work the same way following a second referendum where everyone is suffering from a Brexit overdose.
It would need to be a BIG win for Remain. 60/40 minimum.
But if it was, and No Deal was an option, then, yes, that would also be one of the better 'poor outcomes' that are possible from where we are now.
Back in the real world I've had a couple of emails from suppliers offering spare raw materials at give me an offer prices over the last couple of weeks. Can't remember last time that happened in my sector - probably the 80s.
Those stockpiles might be about to be shifted at a discount.
A strange case can be made for Trump being more honest than most politicians, despite constantly lying. I think it is fairly clear what his "real" private views are on any subject, in comparison Hillary would tell far fewer lies, but her private views on even key matters were impossible to decouple from the spin and presentation.
Trump's lying is that of the autocratic bully taking the piss. He does not seek to hide the fact that he IS lying. It is part of the attraction for him - and (to the reprehensibles who support him) OF him.
"Look," he says to his opponents, "I'm lying and I know it - and I know that you know it - and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because my base loves me. I'm untouchable. I don't need to respect the norms and so I don't, and I won't."
It is a way to humiliate.
I would also take issue with the whole "he's more honest" schtick that some people have come up with.
Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that many people believe what he says. The lying serves a deliberate purpose: it makes it hard for people to distinguish truth from falsehood. People then throw their hands up complaining it's all too hard, and conclude that everyone is lying.
When, in fact, there is one - and only one - person actively lying and dissembling.
I agree he's not more honest. I think the problem with Trump is that he doesn't see why the sort of sophistry mentioned earlier around Bill Clinton, and latterly perfected by Hillary, is any less a form of lying than the outright untruths he tells. I think he probably feels that (based on his observations) politicians are just "allowed" to make stuff up, and he's just better at it because he puts way less effort in and people still believe him.
Hence he beat Hillary because his brute force rhetoric and over the top bravado beat her carefully constructed and far less transparent, but ultimately less desirable, sophistry.
In short, I think he genuinely believes he's playing the same game as everyone else; it's just he's figured out a way of breaking the game that no one else ever came up or could carry off. I think he sort of has a point.
Poujadism flourished most vigorously in the last years of the Fourth Republic, and articulated the economic interests and grievances of shopkeepers and other proprietor-managers of small businesses facing economic and social change. The main themes of Poujadism concerned the defense of the common man against the elites.
May be this is a more apt comparison than with the BNP / Front Nationale, etc?
I don't remember enough of my studies of the Fifth Republic to know why it faded. Perhaps Charles de Gaulle was seen as enough of a strong/populist leader that the need for representation wasn't as strong?
IIRC that's right. Poujade seemed to think CDG was 'his type of President'
Poujadisme was rather more of a direct action movement (organised tax strikes, for example) - something which sees an echo in French fuel protests and perhaps the gilets jaunes - rather than a precise analogue for Faragism. But Charles is right that there are correspondences.
I’m not sure how helpful they are, though.
It's how you resolve the issues - perhaps the exclusive focus on immigration is the wrong strategy?
None of their fe***ng business. It is for the people of Scotland to decide, not a pair of southern jessies.
Did I miss the act of parliament that devolved the reserved Constitutional powers from the UK parliament at Westminster?
No he's written the history books and Culloden never happened.
We're waiting to see Jeremy Hunt's Brexit deal "that works for the people of Culloden".
No one lives at Culloden anymore. There is a large visitor centre to remind the Jocks that they lost.. and that the Jacobites were put to the sword. (paid for by the Scots)
Marvellous to experience the Scotch knowledge of the average PBer.
They are not stupid. Malevolent, perhaps, but not stupid. They know full well Boris is lying in some bits but they believe that his intent to depart by end October is sincere and liable to be carried out. And that's what they want to hear.
I worked with a lot who were definitely idiots. I suspect it is the same with other parties too. Activism is their life and only form of "enjoyment". Then there are some are very bright, in other spheres, but when it comes to their political views they are frothing loonies. Then there are (maybe used to be) some really pleasant people with well considered balanced views who want what is best for their country. I am in no doubt that choosing a PM should not be left to unelected members of parties. Very few people seem to pick up that it is a democratic outrage.
With the Tories that wouldn’t help; their MPs have proved themselves worse than Labour’s, who at least has their leader thrust upon them.
Poujadism flourished most vigorously in the last years of the Fourth Republic, and articulated the economic interests and grievances of shopkeepers and other proprietor-managers of small businesses facing economic and social change. The main themes of Poujadism concerned the defense of the common man against the elites.
May be this is a more apt comparison than with the BNP / Front Nationale, etc?
I don't remember enough of my studies of the Fifth Republic to know why it faded. Perhaps Charles de Gaulle was seen as enough of a strong/populist leader that the need for representation wasn't as strong?
IIRC that's right. Poujade seemed to think CDG was 'his type of President'
Poujadisme was rather more of a direct action movement (organised tax strikes, for example) - something which sees an echo in French fuel protests and perhaps the gilets jaunes - rather than a precise analogue for Faragism. But Charles is right that there are correspondences.
I’m not sure how helpful they are, though.
It's how you resolve the issues - perhaps the exclusive focus on immigration is the wrong strategy?
De Gaulle did it by changing the constitution and installing himself as president. Not sure that helps...
Highly amusing reading the indignation of those who told us that No Deal was a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl at the thought that some civil servants' August annual leave might get postponed. Can you make up your minds folks? Either its a real national disaster or its the sort of thing where you can sack it off for two weeks in Mykynos even if your department isn't prepared - it can't be both.
John Bercow has blocked a fresh attempt to prevent no deal Brexit.
The speaker put a stop to the amendment masterminded by Dominic Grieve and Dame Margaret Beckett which planned to deprive key public services of funding if there was a no-deal Brexit.
I think even Bercow knows that was a really stupid amendment. He’d almost certainly have faced a formal vote of confidence if he’d allowed it
John Bercow has blocked a fresh attempt to prevent no deal Brexit.
The speaker put a stop to the amendment masterminded by Dominic Grieve and Dame Margaret Beckett which planned to deprive key public services of funding if there was a no-deal Brexit.
I think even Bercow knows that was a really stupid amendment. He’d almost certainly have faced a formal vote of confidence if he’d allowed it
Has Dominic Grieve been deselected yet? That amendment isn't just anti-Brexit, it's anti people.
The big difference with the Lib Dem leadership contest is that neither of the contenders have had to have the courts placing restraining orders on them.
Isn’t that because the candidate who was arrested for assaulting their partner didn’t stand?
They are not stupid. Malevolent, perhaps, but not stupid. They know full well Boris is lying in some bits but they believe that his intent to depart by end October is sincere and liable to be carried out. And that's what they want to hear.
I worked with a lot who were definitely idiots. I suspect it is the same with other parties too. Activism is their life and only form of "enjoyment". Then there are some are very bright, in other spheres, but when it comes to their political views they are frothing loonies. Then there are (maybe used to be) some really pleasant people with well considered balanced views who want what is best for their country. I am in no doubt that choosing a PM should not be left to unelected members of parties. Very few people seem to pick up that it is a democratic outrage.
I agree with you re your last sentence. In a Parliamentary democracy MPs should make the final decision. Not members.
Tory MPs are giving the membership what they want not exercising their judgment. They are making the same mistake as those Labour MPs nominating Corbyn.
And so we get a PM and, potentially, a fundamental and far reaching shift in policy on the basis of a statistically insignificant and wholly unrepresentative group of people whose primary focus is what is best for their party. It is a democratic outrage.
An indication of just how provisional the current US Administration considers the national security concerns over Huawei:
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1334879 It appears that the U.S. President, eager to use Huawei as a bargaining chip for short-term leverage, is trading away his administration’s original concerns over national security and IP thefts.
Jones observed that Senator Marco Rubio is trying to tighten the restrictions on shipping products to Huawei and he has support in the Senate as well as in Congress. The reality is, said Jones, "Nothing is firm and everything is up for negotiations."...
Highly amusing reading the indignation of those who told us that No Deal was a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl at the thought that some civil servants' August annual leave might get postponed. Can you make up your minds folks? Either its a real national disaster or its the sort of thing where you can sack it off for two weeks in Mykynos even if your department isn't prepared - it can't be both.
It's typical of the way that almost everyone in politics these days attempts to use practically every new development to somehow support their point of view, even if contradictory as you say. All sides are guilty of it.
They are not stupid. Malevolent, perhaps, but not stupid. They know full well Boris is lying in some bits but they believe that his intent to depart by end October is sincere and liable to be carried out. And that's what they want to hear.
I worked with a lot who were definitely idiots. I suspect it is the same with other parties too. Activism is their life and only form of "enjoyment". Then there are some are very bright, in other spheres, but when it comes to their political views they are frothing loonies. Then there are (maybe used to be) some really pleasant people with well considered balanced views who want what is best for their country. I am in no doubt that choosing a PM should not be left to unelected members of parties. Very few people seem to pick up that it is a democratic outrage.
I agree with you re your last sentence. In a Parliamentary democracy MPs should make the final decision. Not members.
Tory MPs are giving the membership what they want not exercising their judgment. They are making the same mistake as those Labour MPs nominating Corbyn.
And so we get a PM and, potentially, a fundamental and far reaching shift in policy on the basis of a statistically insignificant and wholly unrepresentative group of people whose primary focus is what is best for their party. It is a democratic outrage.
But if the leader is selected by MPs, that is an even more statistically insignificant group, and even less representative. At least anyone can join and be a member if they so wish.
Highly amusing reading the indignation of those who told us that No Deal was a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl at the thought that some civil servants' August annual leave might get postponed. Can you make up your minds folks? Either its a real national disaster or its the sort of thing where you can sack it off for two weeks in Mykynos even if your department isn't prepared - it can't be both.
If it's important enough for leave to be cancelled then it can be cancelled for the MPs who have landed us in this mess. Those at the top should take responsibility not seek to blame the poor bloody infantry and take it out on them.
"Look," he says to his opponents, "I'm lying and I know it - and I know that you know it - and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because my base loves me. I'm untouchable. I don't need to respect the norms and so I don't, and I won't."
It is a way to humiliate.
I would also take issue with the whole "he's more honest" schtick that some people have come up with.
Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that many people believe what he says. The lying serves a deliberate purpose: it makes it hard for people to distinguish truth from falsehood. People then throw their hands up complaining it's all too hard, and conclude that everyone is lying.
When, in fact, there is one - and only one - person actively lying and dissembling.
I agree he's not more honest. I think the problem with Trump is that he doesn't see why the sort of sophistry mentioned earlier around Bill Clinton, and latterly perfected by Hillary, is any less a form of lying than the outright untruths he tells. I think he probably feels that (based on his observations) politicians are just "allowed" to make stuff up, and he's just better at it because he puts way less effort in and people still believe him.
Hence he beat Hillary because his brute force rhetoric and over the top bravado beat her carefully constructed and far less transparent, but ultimately less desirable, sophistry.
In short, I think he genuinely believes he's playing the same game as everyone else; it's just he's figured out a way of breaking the game that no one else ever came up or could carry off. I think he sort of has a point.
On Trump's Bullshit: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/on-trumps-bullshit/593062/ Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are...
They are not stupid. Malevolent, perhaps, but not stupid. They know full well Boris is lying in some bits but they believe that his intent to depart by end October is sincere and liable to be carried out. And that's what they want to hear.
I worked with a lot who were definitely idiots. I suspect it is the same with other parties too. Activism is their life and only form of "enjoyment". Then there are some are very bright, in other spheres, but when it comes to their political views they are frothing loonies. Then there are (maybe used to be) some really pleasant people with well considered balanced views who want what is best for their country. I am in no doubt that choosing a PM should not be left to unelected members of parties. Very few people seem to pick up that it is a democratic outrage.
I agree with you re your last sentence. In a Parliamentary democracy MPs should make the final decision. Not members.
Tory MPs are giving the membership what they want not exercising their judgment. They are making the same mistake as those Labour MPs nominating Corbyn.
And so we get a PM and, potentially, a fundamental and far reaching shift in policy on the basis of a statistically insignificant and wholly unrepresentative group of people whose primary focus is what is best for their party. It is a democratic outrage.
No it isn't, parties are not just collections of MPs they are made up of hard working activists too and for the toil they put in fundraising and campaigning at election time they at least deserve a say in electing the party leader and given MPs elected Hague and May their judgement is not flawless either
Highly amusing reading the indignation of those who told us that No Deal was a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl at the thought that some civil servants' August annual leave might get postponed. Can you make up your minds folks? Either its a real national disaster or its the sort of thing where you can sack it off for two weeks in Mykynos even if your department isn't prepared - it can't be both.
And how do we propose to pull off the same demand of our interlocutors, without whom much of this activity would be pointless ?
Or are you suggesting we simply plan for autarky ?
Jeremy Hunt says his childhood ambitions were to be PM or Archbishop of Canterbury, so if he fails in the former there may still be time to try for the latter
They are not stupid. Malevolent, perhaps, but not stupid. They know full well Boris is lying in some bits but they believe that his intent to depart by end October is sincere and liable to be carried out. And that's what they want to hear.
I worked with a lot who were definitely idiots. I suspect it is the same with other parties too. Activism is their life and only form of "enjoyment". Then there are some are very bright, in other spheres, but when it comes to their political views they are frothing loonies. Then there are (maybe used to be) some really pleasant people with well considered balanced views who want what is best for their country. I am in no doubt that choosing a PM should not be left to unelected members of parties. Very few people seem to pick up that it is a democratic outrage.
I agree with you re your last sentence. In a Parliamentary democracy MPs should make the final decision. Not members.
Tory MPs are giving the membership what they want not exercising their judgment. They are making the same mistake as those Labour MPs nominating Corbyn.
And so we get a PM and, potentially, a fundamental and far reaching shift in policy on the basis of a statistically insignificant and wholly unrepresentative group of people whose primary focus is what is best for their party. It is a democratic outrage.
But if the leader is selected by MPs, that is an even more statistically insignificant group, and even less representative. At least anyone can join and be a member if they so wish.
But it is not about being representative, if it were, lets elect a president. MPs are better than members at selecting a leader as:
1. They will know the candidates better than members 2. They are reliant on the support of the wider public for their jobs in a way members are not, so more likely to reflect the views of ordinary people. 3. They are more informed of the challenges and details facing the country than members, particularly when they are currently in govt. 4. When membership becomes extreme, as in both main parties now, most "normal" people will run a mile away so whilst anyone can become a member, entryists can and do take over.
Comments
The Belgrano was more an attempt to mislead Parliament, which failed.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/denying-margaret-thatcher-failing-1984-national-archives
If you want a friend in politics, get a dog.
It would have been more believable if they were briefing about his hatred of the EU and worry over extreme policy positions, than he is an old duffer.
I'm sure even the most resolutely moral of our former PMs would occasionally have made utterances that failed the truth test.
"I love your new haircut."
"Your mother is just wonderful."
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
"It's lovely to see you again."
Etc.
My point is that up until recently, it was very rare for politicians to bare faced lie. Take Bill Clinton: look at his wonderful sophistry to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". All this to avoid actually lying. (I would contrast this to President Trump.)
Worst general speak among the yuff....inserting 27 "like"s into a single sentence.
If the metropolitan elite is actually wealthy people who have moved out to live in shire towns in the home counties perhaps a new descriptor could be used.
Is publicly claiming 20 and privately planning 75 a bare faced lie?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48827101
https://twitter.com/mattchorley/status/1145650150062342144?s=21
https://unherd.com/2019/07/farage-has-found-boriss-weak-spot/
The presumption is that Farage would be keen to do a deal with Johnson and go into coalition with him. On the evidence of yesterday, he’s not planning to make it easy for him: “Mr Johnson, you can try if you want to, but I will not be put back in my box by you or anybody else.”
First, he made clear that any version of Theresa May’s deal that Boris manages to pass, however amended, will be declared a betrayal and will serve to supercharge the Brexit Party: “It’s not a deal, its Monsieur Barnier’s new European Treaty… it must never pass in this country.”
....
Farage has worked out Boris Johnson’s greatest potential weakness among this audience: he’s a quintessential metropolitan liberal.
But they're both pretty dubious.
"Darling, I've been putting cigars in the strangest places and giving and getting oral sex but I'm a faithful husband/wife, honest."
That's more than sophistry. It's plain insulting, to both your spouse and lover.
If we leave with the WA and Farage is reinforced just enough to plague the Tories for several years, as opposed to being turbo-charged to an extent that gives him a shot at power, then this, for me, would be the best of the various poor outcomes that are possible from here.
It was Al Gore.
"Look," he says to his opponents, "I'm lying and I know it - and I know that you know it - and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because my base loves me. I'm untouchable. I don't need to respect the norms and so I don't, and I won't."
It is a way to humiliate.
That should - even before Ms Lewinsky - have been a hint to Ms Clinton that her husband might not have been entirely faithful.
Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that many people believe what he says. The lying serves a deliberate purpose: it makes it hard for people to distinguish truth from falsehood. People then throw their hands up complaining it's all too hard, and conclude that everyone is lying.
When, in fact, there is one - and only one - person actively lying and dissembling.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/01/tory-leadership-race-boris-johnson-jeremy-hunt-brexit-parliament/
John Bercow has blocked a fresh attempt to prevent no deal Brexit.
The speaker put a stop to the amendment masterminded by Dominic Grieve and Dame Margaret Beckett which planned to deprive key public services of funding if there was a no-deal Brexit.
The dumb and childish way that he communicates, for example, it is pitched quite deliberately at the level of his 'base'. Very effective.
He is changing (has changed) the nature of political discourse in the USA and right across the world.
He will have a big legacy even if he is (as I think he will be) a one term president.
Democratic politics is set up to make lying necessary, collective cabinet responsibility for example involves hiding your own private view, except in cabinet, and publicly standing by the cabinet view. There is merit in this approach but it often puts politicians in a place where they have to lie.
Similarly there will be times when a politician being honest about a situation creates problems rather than helps, we do sometimes need our leaders to be optimistic to the point of lying to keep up morale and/or keep the economy going. I think Mrs Thatcher was probably right to say we would close 20 pits rather than 75, as if she had been truthful the consequences for the country would have been worse. It is a judgement call to be made, I am surprised any serious observor of politics does not expect all politicians to lie.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451176-harris-warren-are-biggest-debate-winners-confidence-in-biden-drops-poll
...Fifty-seven percent of Democrats said they believe Biden is capable of defeating Trump, down from 70 percent in May.
Fifty-one percent said they believe Warren is capable of defeating Trump, up from 40 percent in the prior survey. Forty-nine percent said the same of Harris, a 10 point jump from May...
No, they know or realise the only way to maintain the Conservative Party in power is to get the UK out of the EU by any means, WA or no WA, on 31/10. Any further delay risks not just a 97 style defeat but something far worse - an existential defeat which could see them supplanted as the leading centre-right force by TBP.
It's pure unadulterated self-preservation that beings them to Boris - take Matt Hancock, he has been politically emasculated but he will swallow whatever rubbish Boris offers because that's the only way to save his political career. He could survive almost any political tsunami but what use being one of a handful of survivors on the political fringes?
But if it was, and No Deal was an option, then, yes, that would also be one of the better 'poor outcomes' that are possible from where we are now.
Those stockpiles might be about to be shifted at a discount.
Hence he beat Hillary because his brute force rhetoric and over the top bravado beat her carefully constructed and far less transparent, but ultimately less desirable, sophistry.
In short, I think he genuinely believes he's playing the same game as everyone else; it's just he's figured out a way of breaking the game that no one else ever came up or could carry off. I think he sort of has a point.
Not sure that helps...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/47483582
Beatings will continue until morale improves.
Tory MPs are giving the membership what they want not exercising their judgment. They are making the same mistake as those Labour MPs nominating Corbyn.
And so we get a PM and, potentially, a fundamental and far reaching shift in policy on the basis of a statistically insignificant and wholly unrepresentative group of people whose primary focus is what is best for their party. It is a democratic outrage.
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1334879
It appears that the U.S. President, eager to use Huawei as a bargaining chip for short-term leverage, is trading away his administration’s original concerns over national security and IP thefts.
Jones observed that Senator Marco Rubio is trying to tighten the restrictions on shipping products to Huawei and he has support in the Senate as well as in Congress. The reality is, said Jones, "Nothing is firm and everything is up for negotiations."...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/on-trumps-bullshit/593062/
Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are...
Or are you suggesting we simply plan for autarky ?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-pm-s-exaide-finally-admits-we-failed-a4179461.html
1. They will know the candidates better than members
2. They are reliant on the support of the wider public for their jobs in a way members are not, so more likely to reflect the views of ordinary people.
3. They are more informed of the challenges and details facing the country than members, particularly when they are currently in govt.
4. When membership becomes extreme, as in both main parties now, most "normal" people will run a mile away so whilst anyone can become a member, entryists can and do take over.