Just a thought. Does the Cox advice actually come from recent events? May discussed proroguing as a technical wheeze to get around the speaker not allowing the same thing to be voted on repeatedly in the same session.
Indeed is it possible that that was where the details shy Johnson got the idea from in the first place, possibly having not understood what the motivation was at the time?
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etc
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."
(Amazon Review)
lol. I may not have SeanT's wit, charm and effortless virility, but I can see one thing: you guys are eerily obsessed with him. You display a kind of badly-disguised, morally contorted hero-worship.
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.
"2.9 command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place. 2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remaon in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.
Agreed. It is incredibly dangerous for the Monarch to be sucked in to this quagmire.
This is incorrect.
The Sovereign, through the Crown in Parliament and prerogative powers, takes a huge part in the constitutional political process. The seismic difference is that it is not party political.
Sozza Jack no one respects your finger on the pulse of the monarchy (since inception?) more than me. But the palace is going to do nothing active. It will at all times be advised by and follow the instructions of/agree to the politicians.
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
It sounds a great idea, avoiding penalising families who want to take a single break but escalating so that even businesses shift faster into teleconferencing etc. But I missed it altogether - who's suggested that?
In the Guardian article they cite the Committee on Climate Change as suggesting it as an option for curbing demand for air travel. The Guardian report didn't mention any of the other policy options.
Boris Johnson is that guy who sees everyone buying a few glasses of expensive wine on business trips, on the edge of the expenses policy but accepted, and therefore decides to blow thousands of pounds of company money on strippers.
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etc
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."
(Amazon Review)
lol. I may not have SeanT's wit, charm and effortless virility, but I can see one thing: you guys are eerily obsessed with him. You display a kind of badly-disguised, morally contorted hero-worship.
I freely admit he makes me laugh from time to time. I even voted for him back in the pb awards 2007 I think.
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
Over recent years, flying seems to have become more and more difficult. It reached the poinbt some years ago were I just decided not to fly any more. I cannot be bothered with the hoops I have to jump through or the attitude of many airport/airline staff.
Schiphol have new scanning machines which mean you don’t need to remove your liquids from your bag.
Sounds like a small thing but makes the whole process appreciably less irritating.
Yes, they’re very good. Coming to Heathrow soon too.
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etc
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."
(Amazon Review)
lol. I may not have SeanT's wit, charm and effortless virility, but I can see one thing: you guys are eerily obsessed with him. You display a kind of badly-disguised, morally contorted hero-worship.
No one is discussing the other possible impossible. A Tory-BXP alliance, to deliver Brexit.
If it could be engineered, it would mean the Leave side would romp home to an enormous victory. Also, Corbyn would be demolished. So it may be best for the country, too.
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etc
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."
(Amazon Review)
lol. I may not have SeanT's wit, charm and effortless virility, but I can see one thing: you guys are eerily obsessed with him. You display a kind of badly-disguised, morally contorted hero-worship.
I was disappointed with the punctuation in the Ice Twins.
Commas were abundant, but I had to wade through a lot of extraneous matter on child abuse, adultery, ghosts, murder and sexual perversion before finding the Colon and Semicolon.
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.
"2.9 command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place. 2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remaon in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.
Agreed. It is incredibly dangerous for the Monarch to be sucked in to this quagmire.
This is incorrect.
The Sovereign, through the Crown in Parliament and prerogative powers, takes a huge part in the constitutional political process. The seismic difference is that it is not party political.
Sozza Jack no one respects your finger on the pulse of the monarchy (since inception?) more than me. But the palace is going to do nothing active. It will at all times be advised by and follow the instructions of/agree to the politicians.
It is never "instructions". Nobody instructs the Queen.
My main point is that the position of the Sovereign is clear. The monarch is central to the process but one step removed from the the grubby process of party politics.
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etc
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."
(Amazon Review)
lol. I may not have SeanT's wit, charm and effortless virility, but I can see one thing: you guys are eerily obsessed with him. You display a kind of badly-disguised, morally contorted hero-worship.
I freely admit he makes me laugh from time to time. I even voted for him back in the pb awards 2007 I think.
No need to feel ashamed. There are people on here who voted for Plato, but they tend to keep quiet about it.
Can one of our learned lawyers here explain the significance of the missing signed affidavit ? I understand this was supposed to inform the court why Parliament needed to be prorogued. But no one was prepared to sign it. In fact, rumour has it that Alexander Johnson and Rees-Mogg were told not to sign it.
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
They're often the best, but I was concerned that you young 'uns were misremembering how awful the Dick Emery Show was. Les Dawson did something similar but his portrayal was accurate.
As a fifty something it is flattering 5o be thought a young 'un!
The Dick Emery Show hasn't aged well. Some comedy doesn't, the The Goodies for example, while other stuff has, such as Fawlty Towers.
I used to read Slashdot regularly fifteen to twenty years ago. Now, when I pop in every so often, it seems a little dead. ISTR there was a takeover that changed it slightly?
And this tells me that I'm getting old - and so is t'Internet and t'web. We're seeing a second generation born of people who have lived whilst the web has existed in a popular, commercial sense. Their world growing up is massively different to the one I grew up in - and much of that is down to the web.
Slashdot! Dear heavens... a blast from the past. I never liked it all that much because of some of the "theological" arguments on programming style or the GPL, etc. I preferred reading Pamela Jones's Groklaw at the time.
As for the internet, I can remember lying in the bath reading a computer mag of the time that had two interesting stories about new technologies. One about a new graphical interface for the internet and a tool call Mosaic to access it, and the other about the hottest new language of the day - Java.
I used to have to access the internet via WAIS, ftp and telnet via CIX. Then Demon;s dial-up set me free at a sizzling 33.6K
There were text based internet "browsers", but AFAI remember Mosaic was a really big step forward in making the internet usable.
I had no such problems with download speeds as my online access was at uni, it was a good time to be a postgraduate student.
Yes - Mosaic inspired Netscape and the rest was history and we all used Netscape because Bill Gates said the Internet was a waste of time and Micro$oft were not wasting any time on it. Then came the mother of all backtracks and life for webpage builders more then doubled in complexity when the deformed, evil troll that was IE5 was foisted on us all.
Followed by the even more demented IE6, which for some reason every large company decided to write an intranet for - despite the fact that it was utterly incompatible with any other browser before or since. Must have consumed billions of $currencyunit over the years to put that all right.
IE6 has a special place in hell where it deserves to roast for all eternity.
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.
"2.9 command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place. 2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remaon in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.
Agreed. It is incredibly dangerous for the Monarch to be sucked in to this quagmire.
This is incorrect.
The Sovereign, through the Crown in Parliament and prerogative powers, takes a huge part in the constitutional political process. The seismic difference is that it is not party political.
Sozza Jack no one respects your finger on the pulse of the monarchy (since inception?) more than me. But the palace is going to do nothing active. It will at all times be advised by and follow the instructions of/agree to the politicians.
No one is discussing the other possible impossible. A Tory-BXP alliance, to deliver Brexit.
If it could be engineered, it would mean the Leave side would romp home to an enormous victory. Also, Corbyn would be demolished. So it may be best for the country, too.
What would Farage demand? What would Boris offer?
It certainly became a lot more likely after yesterdays little reported decision from the NCA that Banks didn't take money from the Russians to fund Leave.EU.
No one is discussing the other possible impossible. A Tory-BXP alliance, to deliver Brexit.
If it could be engineered, it would mean the Leave side would romp home to an enormous victory. Also, Corbyn would be demolished. So it may be best for the country, too.
What would Farage demand? What would Boris offer?
I doubt Farage wants Brexit.
Or at least wants Brexit a lot less than he wants to posture about it.
Can one of our learned lawyers here explain the significance of the missing signed affidavit ? I understand this was supposed to inform the court why Parliament needed to be prorogued. But no one was prepared to sign it. In fact, rumour has it that Alexander Johnson and Rees-Mogg were told not to sign it.
IANAL but my understanding is that whoever signed would be risking perjury proceedings.
Jack W - The Queen always acts on the advice of her ministers. She can't be above party politics - she sides with the governing party. Apparently she has no choice but to do so.
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.
"2.9 command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place. 2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remaon in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.
Agreed. It is incredibly dangerous for the Monarch to be sucked in to this quagmire.
This is incorrect.
The Sovereign, through the Crown in Parliament and prerogative powers, takes a huge part in the constitutional political process. The seismic difference is that it is not party political.
Sozza Jack no one respects your finger on the pulse of the monarchy (since inception?) more than me. But the palace is going to do nothing active. It will at all times be advised by and follow the instructions of/agree to the politicians.
Doesn't it depend what he actually said to her?
Indeed, and with what intent.
I'm also having great difficulty with the notion that the Palace and HM are passive instruments of the pols - quite apart from what happened in 2014 and has been published in the last two Private Eyes.
Firstly, there must surely be limits as to what she will agree to - in which case there is an element of active decision involved, and HM is not after all a passive agent.
And secondly despite that, if the Queen only does what Mr Johnson tells her to do, what's the point of her as a head of state? Handing out the medals and KCMGs is not a sufficient answer.
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.
"2.9 command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place. 2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remaon in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.
Agreed. It is incredibly dangerous for the Monarch to be sucked in to this quagmire.
This is incorrect.
The Sovereign, through the Crown in Parliament and prerogative powers, takes a huge part in the constitutional political process. The seismic difference is that it is not party political.
Sozza Jack no one respects your finger on the pulse of the monarchy (since inception?) more than me. But the palace is going to do nothing active. It will at all times be advised by and follow the instructions of/agree to the politicians.
Doesn't it depend what he actually said to her?
Indeed, and with what intent.
I'm also having great difficulty with the notion that the Palace and HM are passive instruments of the pols - quite apart from what happened in 2014 and has been published in the last two Private Eyes.
Firstly, there must surely be limits as to what she will agree to - in which case there is an element of active decision involved, and HM is not after all a passive agent.
And secondly despite that, if the Queen only does what Mr Johnson tells her to do, what's the point of her as a head of state? Handing out the medals and KCMGs is not a sufficient answer.
Populism will take care of itself now, it doesn't need forced references.
Maybe the culture of one electorate likes that bit of “I’m a winner, baby” cock, it grates in the culture of another country and proves counterproductive ?
No one is discussing the other possible impossible. A Tory-BXP alliance, to deliver Brexit.
If it could be engineered, it would mean the Leave side would romp home to an enormous victory. Also, Corbyn would be demolished. So it may be best for the country, too.
What would Farage demand? What would Boris offer?
I doubt Farage wants Brexit.
Or at least wants Brexit a lot less than he wants to posture about it.
Agreed, he is just another preening egotist that has managed to manipulate the gullible.
No one is discussing the other possible impossible. A Tory-BXP alliance, to deliver Brexit.
If it could be engineered, it would mean the Leave side would romp home to an enormous victory. Also, Corbyn would be demolished. So it may be best for the country, too.
What would Farage demand? What would Boris offer?
I doubt Farage wants Brexit.
Or at least wants Brexit a lot less than he wants to posture about it.
On the other hand Farage is 55. Has drank and smoked all his life and may think that now is the time to finally secure his place in the history of the country by delivering Brexit (with Boris) while he's is still young enough and well enough to do it?
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
Can one of our learned lawyers here explain the significance of the missing signed affidavit ? I understand this was supposed to inform the court why Parliament needed to be prorogued. But no one was prepared to sign it. In fact, rumour has it that Alexander Johnson and Rees-Mogg were told not to sign it.
I'm not learned or a lawyer but I believe that anyone signing such an affidavit would have put themselves at risk of perjury charges if the government lost the case. Anyone who swore something transparently untrue (that the prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit) to the SC would have put themselves at personal risk.
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
For the country the problem is theres no grouping with sufficient support to run the country and it looks like no election will be permitted to try to change that for several months. Again, Boris going doesnt change thst much.
If the government resigns the only acceptable replacement would be one whose only purpose would be to extend and then call a GE.
I honestly cannot see another move for Johnson unless the EU for some reason decide to cave in, and by his own logic it wont because parliament has taken no deal off the table.
He cannot stop the Commons doing whatever it wants anymore, he cannot take action other than resignation. But that's such a nuclear option.
Seriously, what can he try next? He and the Tories will be petrified of that BXP rating, even attacking the judges is not getting the share down, what more can he do?
Why would attacking our legal system do anything to reduce the BXP vote share - if anything Nigel is now the saner Brexiter option.
And this really is the problem with what the Commons has done
They can not negotiate a Treaty themselves, but refused the Executive’s proposal. They are refusing to replace the government and won’t call an election.
We are in stasis because of parliament overreaching
This is what I have been saying for days. It is all very well and probably desirable for opposition parties and MPs to describe the current government as failing and in chaos, but normally this would lead to VONC and change of government. Is it any wonder that in times such as these where there is a clash between old dividing lines of left and right with new lines of leave and remain that constitutional norms, such as a government well short of a majority not being able to govern and there being an election, have been stretched to breaking point? Is it a surprise that against this and a speaker who rather than upholding conventions wants to rewrite them, that the government ends up pushing boundaries too? For all the furore of yesterday I see the fault of the current deadlock falling on all sides. No-one seems willing to come forward to lead from the centre and compromise. When Labour talked to May the only options seemingly put forward were ones that would tactically break the Tories in two, and then allow a Corbyn government? How could a self respecting Tory prime minister allow that? The WA for all its faults is the best middle way - barely acceptable to both sides, but each side seems to be moving away from that.
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etc
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."
(Amazon Review)
lol. I may not have SeanT's wit, charm and effortless virility, but I can see one thing: you guys are eerily obsessed with him. You display a kind of badly-disguised, morally contorted hero-worship.
I always found his views pretty unbearable, but at least he has had the honesty to realise that the whole Brexit adventure has been damaging and pointless.
For the country the problem is theres no grouping with sufficient support to run the country and it looks like no election will be permitted to try to change that for several months. Again, Boris going doesnt change thst much.
If the government resigns the only acceptable replacement would be one whose only purpose would be to extend and then call a GE.
I honestly cannot see another move for Johnson unless the EU for some reason decide to cave in, and by his own logic it wont because parliament has taken no deal off the table.
He cannot stop the Commons doing whatever it wants anymore, he cannot take action other than resignation. But that's such a nuclear option.
Seriously, what can he try next? He and the Tories will be petrified of that BXP rating, even attacking the judges is not getting the share down, what more can he do?
He could revoke Article 50 but I wouldn’t put too much money on that.
In these, the dying days of Boris's premiership, what do you think his legacy will be? I still don't think he'll be viewed as the worst PM. Perhaps the one with the worst intentions, but stopped by our Great British constitution. May will still be the clusterfuck of ages.
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etc
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."
(Amazon Review)
lol. I may not have SeanT's wit, charm and effortless virility, but I can see one thing: you guys are eerily obsessed with him. You display a kind of badly-disguised, morally contorted hero-worship.
I freely admit he makes me laugh from time to time. I even voted for him back in the pb awards 2007 I think.
No need to feel ashamed. There are people on here who voted for Plato, but they tend to keep quiet about it.
It was Plato vs Antifrank. A viscious comment by tim got Plato over the line. RIP.
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
No one is discussing the other possible impossible. A Tory-BXP alliance, to deliver Brexit.
If it could be engineered, it would mean the Leave side would romp home to an enormous victory. Also, Corbyn would be demolished. So it may be best for the country, too.
What would Farage demand? What would Boris offer?
I doubt Farage wants Brexit.
Or at least wants Brexit a lot less than he wants to posture about it.
On the other hand Farage is 55. Has drank and smoked all his life and may think that now is the time to finally secure his place in the history of the country by delivering Brexit (with Boris) while he's is still young enough and well enough to do it?
We'll see...
In 2017, when everyone assumed Brexit would be delivered, Farage faded from the scene. This year, as it became clear that the whole project was in trouble, he stormed back in. In the unlikely event that we actually leave the EU on 31 October he will fade away again. I think he would much prefer to stay in the limelight, and so he would prefer continued delays (AKA betrayals) of Brexit.
No one is discussing the other possible impossible. A Tory-BXP alliance, to deliver Brexit.
If it could be engineered, it would mean the Leave side would romp home to an enormous victory. Also, Corbyn would be demolished. So it may be best for the country, too.
What would Farage demand? What would Boris offer?
It is not impossible, but I think that serious talks on a pact (or merger?) would commence only if there were to be another inconclusive GE in which the BXP end up with zero seats after gaining a share of votes into double figures and the Conservatives fall back on their 2017 seat tally. We are too close to a GE now and both parties have candidates in place.
And if Johnson (or Raab etc) were serious about a pact, to silence internal critics in the parliamentary party, he would be well advised to seek the endorsement of his party members via a special conference or ballot before proceeding.
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
The Dick Emery Show was awful. Even though it was very popular, it wasn't funny, relying on catchphrases and bad jokes. But it was popular for some reason.
The Black and White Minstrels was massively popular. Not my cup of tea, but it broke many records for audience share. It was never overtaken by alternative comedy and remained popular right until it was taken off by the BBC.
Trying to pretend it became unpopular is re-writing history. It was racist and that was the reason the BBC took it off alr.
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
It sounds a great idea, avoiding penalising families who want to take a single break but escalating so that even businesses shift faster into teleconferencing etc. But I missed it altogether - who's suggested that?
One flight seems a bit low, 2 or 3 better. What about people that live abroad for example, do they basically have to choose between a holiday and seeing their family back home? People have other reasons to travel besides holidays, such as getting back for funerals etc. But the basic premise seems a good one.
We still have a disastrous mandateless/unelected Prime Minister.
I’m sure the irony is lost on most people that those yesterday cheering conventions and procedures in Parliament, are the same ones who call Boris unelected and mandateless despite being elected by his own party and offering himself up for a general election.
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etc
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."
(Amazon Review)
lol. I may not have SeanT's wit, charm and effortless virility, but I can see one thing: you guys are eerily obsessed with him. You display a kind of badly-disguised, morally contorted hero-worship.
I always found his views pretty unbearable, but at least he has had the honesty to realise that the whole Brexit adventure has been damaging and pointless.
In these, the dying days of Boris's premiership, what do you think his legacy will be? I still don't think he'll be viewed as the worst PM. Perhaps the one with the worst intentions, but stopped by our Great British constitution. May will still be the clusterfuck of ages.
Your predictions about Boris may be proved true but as it stands we will be writing the epitaph of Labour come the GE.
For all the claims that Boris is trapped the truth is that he has a very clear route laid out for him. Yes, it might be considered the nuclear option but if ever there was a situation that warranted pressing the button then this it.
Looking back at what was acceptable then shows how much the country has changed socially and for the better.
Yes.
The much maligned 'Political Correctness' movement - although it has on occasions 'gorn mad' - on balance has been one of the most powerful forces for good in our society of the last 50 years.
Jack W - The Queen always acts on the advice of her ministers. She can't be above party politics - she sides with the governing party. Apparently she has no choice but to do so.
Incorrect.
The monarch invariably acts on the advice of ministers. However the sovereign retains extensive reserve and personal prerogative powers. Further when ministers advise the Queen it is their duty to do so outwith party political concerns.
If Laura K thinks Johnson is n trouble with his own side HYUFD will need some pretty powerful polls before I'd bet on him surviving
Boris is not in trouble and if he goes Dominic Raab is certain to replace him on a pact with the Brexit Party ticket for ultra hard Brexit
No. Mr J Hunt MP will have most Tory support, the MPs would select him and hope to regain 18 or 20 missing members of Parliament.
They would not as 67% of Tory members and a majority of Tory voters would defect to the Brexit Party if Hunt became PM to extend and Labour would vote him down anyway
In these, the dying days of Boris's premiership, what do you think his legacy will be? I still don't think he'll be viewed as the worst PM. Perhaps the one with the worst intentions, but stopped by our Great British constitution. May will still be the clusterfuck of ages.
LOL "dying days" that's funny.
Boris is more likely to be still PM in five years, than gone within 5 days.
There is no majority in Parliament for anything at the moment anyway beyond extension of Article 50 so who cares
Customs Union and Confirmatory Referendum both came very close in the indicative votes. Put them together in a package and they'll probably pass.
Both failed to pass the Commons only the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop passed the Commons and that is what Boris is still aiming for
They failed but only barely, and they weren't tested as a package.
So the LDs mostly voted down CU, and the moderate (many now ex-) Cons voted down Referendum.
I'm sure the LDs don't have anything non-tactical against adding CU to the stew, and I expect most of the ex-Cons would suck up the referendum to get the thing done now Boris has burned their bridges.
The LDs now back remain only and Tory rebels back Brexit with a Deal not EUref2
Looking back at what was acceptable then shows how much the country has changed socially and for the better.
Yes.
The much maligned 'Political Correctness' movement - although it has on occasions 'gorn mad' - on balance has been one of the most powerful forces for good in our society of the last 50 years.
It's up there with ... well it's up there.
I often think that the core of "Political Correctness" is a combination of good manners and "treat others as you wish to be treated yourself". Other people may tack all sorts of extras on it but, to me, that is the core of it.
I think it used to be known as "Be nice to people"
I find all those 70s comedies very funny. Never saw Dick Emery, but most of the rest. Frankly, Mrs Slocombe’s pussy is a joke I will never tire of.
Not sure what that makes me, but I can’t be arsed getting righteous over what a previous generation found entertaining - indeed, I found Little Britain cruel and demeaning, and don’t get me started on the sadism of Big Brother et al.
This is getting silly - they’d find him in contempt yet continue to have confidence in him..?
Parliament has never expressed confidence in him.
They have by virtue of not No Confidencing him.
In the absence of removing confidence, they have confidence.
Absolutely not. Only one man has had the opportunity to put a motion of no confidence. You can draw no inferences about the view of the Commons as a whole from his decision not to do so yet. In the meantime, Boris Johnson has lost every single vote, including the one that he said he was treating as a vote of confidence.
He’s a placeholder Prime Minister, to be replaced at the convenience of others.
If you get suspended from the Commons for more than ten sitting days then it triggers a recall petition.
Are we going to be set for the mother of all by elections?
What is the bar for suspending from the Commons? Is a super majority needed?
Otherwise obviously open for manipulation and abuse by cynical, radical leaders to extend their majorities. Fortunately we have Johnson and Corbyn......
What does "respected" mean? Was it explicit in the question? If not then it could be a mix of interpretations - respected is quite a vague term. Also a leading question, saying now states that you disrespect the result and it's easier to say you respect than disrespect.
I'd probably agree with that if asked, but I'd be willing to overturn the result in another referendum - i.e. I'd respect the result of a subsequent referendum more (being more recent and with a better understanding of the facts and options).
Comments
Indeed is it possible that that was where the details shy Johnson got the idea from in the first place, possibly having not understood what the motivation was at the time?
There are going to be some traumatised Labour supporters on here who will need cheering up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-7HWGHxq4Q&list=PLR4ywKQXOmmaGHqz931csJJijAoPFYkMg&index=6
and the final Black and White Minstrels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJqqoWqD3jQ
Therefore ruining it for everyone.
Populism will take care of itself now, it doesn't need forced references.
If it could be engineered, it would mean the Leave side would romp home to an enormous victory. Also, Corbyn would be demolished. So it may be best for the country, too.
What would Farage demand? What would Boris offer?
Commas were abundant, but I had to wade through a lot of extraneous matter on child abuse, adultery, ghosts, murder and sexual perversion before finding the Colon and Semicolon.
For all the fun and games yesterday the really important event was the ONS including student bad debt in the government borrowing figures.
That makes the current system of university funding untenable and provides a vote winning opportunity for any party which wishes to reform it.
My main point is that the position of the Sovereign is clear. The monarch is central to the process but one step removed from the the grubby process of party politics.
The Dick Emery Show hasn't aged well. Some comedy doesn't, the The Goodies for example, while other stuff has, such as Fawlty Towers.
Or at least wants Brexit a lot less than he wants to posture about it.
I'm also having great difficulty with the notion that the Palace and HM are passive instruments of the pols - quite apart from what happened in 2014 and has been published in the last two Private Eyes.
Firstly, there must surely be limits as to what she will agree to - in which case there is an element of active decision involved, and HM is not after all a passive agent.
And secondly despite that, if the Queen only does what Mr Johnson tells her to do, what's the point of her as a head of state? Handing out the medals and KCMGs is not a sufficient answer.
Maybe the hijack will be “did we get full disclosure from his doctor, this guy looks seriously ill”
Until no deal is taken off the table then the opposition won’t vote for an election. Are these reporters thick or deaf .
We'll see...
I'm not advocating that (the time scale and low odds aren't worth it) but it's telling such a market exists.
Looking back at what was acceptable then shows how much the country has changed socially and for the better.
[Edit: and the bl**dy awful Alf Garnet show, whatever it was called]
I still don't think he'll be viewed as the worst PM. Perhaps the one with the worst intentions, but stopped by our Great British constitution. May will still be the clusterfuck of ages.
https://youtu.be/d-i523Gie9Q
And if Johnson (or Raab etc) were serious about a pact, to silence internal critics in the parliamentary party, he would be well advised to seek the endorsement of his party members via a special conference or ballot before proceeding.
Warren Mitchell and Johnny Speight were very proud of the show until they realised people were treating Garnett as some kind of hero.
West Ham fans have been blighted by the association ever since.
They don't like it up em, do they?
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1176779400500645889
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/04/if-boris-johnson-ignores-the-no-deal-law-then-50-1-on-him-being-suspended-from-the-commons-this-year-looks-attractive/
For all the claims that Boris is trapped the truth is that he has a very clear route laid out for him. Yes, it might be considered the nuclear option but if ever there was a situation that warranted pressing the button then this it.
Government resigns.
Game is up for Labour.
The much maligned 'Political Correctness' movement - although it has on occasions 'gorn mad' - on balance has been one of the most powerful forces for good in our society of the last 50 years.
It's up there with ... well it's up there.
The monarch invariably acts on the advice of ministers. However the sovereign retains extensive reserve and personal prerogative powers. Further when ministers advise the Queen it is their duty to do so outwith party political concerns.
Boris is more likely to be still PM in five years, than gone within 5 days.
Er... have you ever played chess?
I think it used to be known as "Be nice to people"
In the absence of removing confidence, they have confidence.
Are we going to be set for the mother of all by elections?
Never saw Dick Emery, but most of the rest.
Frankly, Mrs Slocombe’s pussy is a joke I will never tire of.
Not sure what that makes me, but I can’t be arsed getting righteous over what a previous generation found entertaining - indeed, I found Little Britain cruel and demeaning, and don’t get me started on the sadism of Big Brother et al.
He’s a placeholder Prime Minister, to be replaced at the convenience of others.
https://twitter.com/69mib/status/1176739867704922119
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Otherwise obviously open for manipulation and abuse by cynical, radical leaders to extend their majorities. Fortunately we have Johnson and Corbyn......
By leavers I assume you mean Tories being used to opposition.
'Very used to the experience' indicates a huge degree of confidence on your part that the Conservatives will not get a majority.
What are we talking, 20-1 against a Tory majority? I won't be greedy, i'll take 10-1 which must be buying money for you.
I'd probably agree with that if asked, but I'd be willing to overturn the result in another referendum - i.e. I'd respect the result of a subsequent referendum more (being more recent and with a better understanding of the facts and options).