Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 70/1 Barry Gardiner may enter the race

124»

Comments

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,214
    edited January 2020

    Anorak said:

    With shit like this, I don't blame Harry and Meghan in the slightest (Mail, natch). The feigned shock in the tabloids today is vomit-inducing hypocrisy.
    https://twitter.com/lusamedusa/status/1215196671686127616

    Quite right. The poor woman was a hate figure to the miserable, hypocritical British press. You only live once. I can perfectly understand their wish to tell those vultures where to stick it.
    Oh let’s not be ridiculous. No-one forces her to read this rubbish. Everyone else in the Royals - from HMQ down - has faced appalling criticism, some of it unfair. And have got on with it. What makes this couple so entitled and special that they should be immune from criticism? There has undoubtedly been a strand of racist misogynistic criticism but they are able to insulate themselves from it far more than most. They give the impression of wanting all the nice stuff without any of the duties. Tough. Time for them to push off to Canada or wherever as plain Mr and Mrs Wales and get on with life.

    On a more general point I find the endless harping on about the damage caused by his mother’s death more than a bit tedious. Plenty of others suffer the loss of parents at a young age or other hurtful and traumatising family difficulties and learn to cope. There is something a bit childish about someone almost 40 focusing on one thing as a reason why their behaviour should be excused or allowances made. Mental stress / illness happens to lots of us in a lifetime. It is not - and should not - be a pretext for selfishness or rudeness. Understanding: yes. Help: certainly. But enough with the “poor little me” nonsense. All of us have crosses to bear, some of them made worse by money and other worries.

    And it was his mother’s rather empty life as a celebrity post her divorce which made her vulnerable to press attention and exploitation by celebrity hangers-on. So if he was concerned to avoid this, he is behaving bloody oddly by choosing the same for him and his family.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    Iran 'may have shot down Boeing 737 plane with 176 on board in error'

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/boeing-737-iran-plane-crash-cause-a4330511.html

    File under "no shit, Sherlock".

    Tragic is this was, it may have been what has caused both sides to back off. A wedding party of 20-odd Iranians were on board. That has got to hit the heart of even a hardened Ayatolloh.....
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Anorak said:

    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    You do not need to pluralise Sussex at all.

    You can't go calling H&M "The Sussex". That just does not sound right.
    You call them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
    For now.

    Would be quite hillarious if she got told she can't use the "Sussex Royal" brand that has been registered in the USA.
    It shouldn't have surprised me, but did, to find out today that they don't actually live in Sussex.
    The aristocracy's casual appropriation if bits of geography is a minor but not insignificant factor in my general irritation with the whole institution.

    Maybe this is all a conspiracy to make those further up the order of precedence look good by comparison.
    Next you'll be telling me the Prince of Wales doesn't live in Caerphilly and that Andrew doesn't live the shadow of York Minster.

    Madness.
    The Prince of Wales is a highly offensive title. Many Welsh people see it as a symbol of subjugation, dislike it heartily, and would like to see it abolished.

    You can call him the Prince of Anorak, if you're so fond of him and want to claim him. I am not and I don't.
    No, no, no, no, no. He's all yours. Really. Kind of you to offer though. But no.
  • Options
    ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    I also like the way the Sussexeses say "we will be spending our time in North America" like they are gonna buy a ranch in Manitoba or do good works in Newfoundland

    Of course, in reality, they are off to southern California.

    "It is understood that the focus of their new lives in North America is likely to be southern California, so that Meghan can spend time with her mother Doria Ragland....

    One source was quoted saying: “Meghan really wants to live in California, it’s where she is from and where her mother lives. She likes the lifestyle and the privacy there.""

    Privacy in California? Really? Seems unlikely. Vancouver Island I could see, but if they move to Southern California the paps will be following around day and night.
    THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT

    Meghan is an actress. She loves the attention and limelight. She wants to hang out with the stars in LA in her role as HRH Megz with the British prince for a husband.

    It's just never going to work, and they don't realise it. In about five years poor Harry will look at his fucked up life, and an expensive divorce, and a hostile and skeptical public back home, and he'll wonder where it all went wrong. Well, it was yesterday when it went wrong.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    I also like the way the Sussexeses say "we will be spending our time in North America" like they are gonna buy a ranch in Manitoba or do good works in Newfoundland

    Of course, in reality, they are off to southern California.

    "It is understood that the focus of their new lives in North America is likely to be southern California, so that Meghan can spend time with her mother Doria Ragland....

    One source was quoted saying: “Meghan really wants to live in California, it’s where she is from and where her mother lives. She likes the lifestyle and the privacy there.""

    Privacy in California? Really? Seems unlikely. Vancouver Island I could see, but if they move to Southern California the paps will be following around day and night.
    THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT

    Meghan is an actress. She loves the attention and limelight. She wants to hang out with the stars in LA in her role as HRH Megz with the British prince for a husband.

    It's just never going to work, and they don't realise it. In about five years poor Harry will look at his fucked up life, and an expensive divorce, and a hostile and skeptical public back home, and he'll wonder where it all went wrong. Well, it was yesterday when it went wrong.
    I tend to agree Byronic. He was cruising for a bruising.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited January 2020

    Iran 'may have shot down Boeing 737 plane with 176 on board in error'

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/boeing-737-iran-plane-crash-cause-a4330511.html

    File under “No sh!t, Sherlock”

    So two neutral countries in Ukraine and Canada are now dragged into the mess.

    Edit: I see @MarqueeMark has the same suggestion about the fictional detective from Baker St.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    You do not need to pluralise Sussex at all.

    You can't go calling H&M "The Sussex". That just does not sound right.
    You call them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
    For now.

    Would be quite hillarious if she got told she can't use the "Sussex Royal" brand that has been registered in the USA.
    They could lose the HRH but keep the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor did when in exile in the South of France
    That seems a likely solution to me, unless the Sussexeses row back from this calamitous misjudgement.
    Yes, cut all royal funds and perks if they want to move to the US or Canada and become self financing but they can keep the token title of Duke and Duchess which are not royal titles by themselves anyway
    On what grounds should they keep Duke and Duchess titles?
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726

    Is there any way of setting up a dedicated thread for those fascinated by Royal news?

    We`ll stop taliking about the royals if you stop talking about Brexit.

    (I`d do a smiley emoji thingy now, but I don`t know how to.)
  • Options
    Is anyone playing Rayner for deputy?
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2020
    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    You do not need to pluralise Sussex at all.

    You can't go calling H&M "The Sussex". That just does not sound right.
    You call them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
    For now.

    Would be quite hillarious if she got told she can't use the "Sussex Royal" brand that has been registered in the USA.
    They could lose the HRH but keep the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor did when in exile in the South of France
    That seems a likely solution to me, unless the Sussexeses row back from this calamitous misjudgement.
    Yes, cut all royal funds and perks if they want to move to the US or Canada and become self financing but they can keep the token title of Duke and Duchess which are not royal titles by themselves anyway
    On what grounds should they keep Duke and Duchess titles?
    On the grounds he remains the Queen's grandson and to remove them would be petty, spiteful, vindictive, and generally pour petrol on an already inflamed situation.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Gardiner 34 with BF, Thornberry 224.

    I feel a bit sorry for Emily.

    Why...?
    She`s not just losing badly she`s being humiliated.
    That's the odd thing about this contest. With the exception of Sir Keir, none of the candidates seems to be really trying. They've had plenty of notice that a leadership contest was likely, and even if they didn't guess before the election, they've still had all of the Xmas period to get on to WhatsApp to plot with fellow MPs, set up a campaign team, organise supporters to ring around cajoling their fellow MPs for support, and so on. But, from the outside at least, there seems to have been none of this - where is Team Nandy, or Team Jess, or even Team Becky - let alone Team Thornberry? The whole thing is oddly bloodless, as though they are all going though the motions.
    Yes, it`s almost as though they feel it`s the wrong time to become labour leader (see the "Hague gambit").
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    Anorak said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    You do not need to pluralise Sussex at all.

    You can't go calling H&M "The Sussex". That just does not sound right.
    You call them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
    For now.

    Would be quite hillarious if she got told she can't use the "Sussex Royal" brand that has been registered in the USA.
    They could lose the HRH but keep the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor did when in exile in the South of France
    That seems a likely solution to me, unless the Sussexeses row back from this calamitous misjudgement.
    Yes, cut all royal funds and perks if they want to move to the US or Canada and become self financing but they can keep the token title of Duke and Duchess which are not royal titles by themselves anyway
    On what grounds should they keep Duke and Duchess titles?
    On the grounds he remains the Queens grandson and to remove them would be petty, spiteful, vindictive, and generally pour petrol on an already inflamed situation.
    Isn`t family embarrassing.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    With shit like this, I don't blame Harry and Meghan in the slightest (Mail, natch). The feigned shock in the tabloids today is vomit-inducing hypocrisy.
    https://twitter.com/lusamedusa/status/1215196671686127616

    Quite right. The poor woman was a hate figure to the miserable, hypocritical British press. You only live once. I can perfectly understand their wish to tell those vultures where to stick it.
    Oh let’s not be ridiculous. No-one forces her to read this rubbish. Everyone else in the Royals - from HMQ down - has faced appalling criticism, some of it unfair. And have got on with it. What makes this couple so entitled and special that they should be immune from criticism? There has undoubtedly been a strand of racist misogynistic criticism but they are able to insulate themselves from it far more than most. They give the impression of wanting all the nice stuff without any of the duties. Tough. Time for them to push off to Canada or wherever as plain Mr and Mrs Wales and get on with life.

    On a more general point I find the endless harping on about the damage caused by his mother’s death more than a bit tedious. Plenty of others suffer the loss of parents at a young age or other hurtful and traumatising family difficulties and learn to cope. There is something a bit childish about someone almost 40 focusing on one thing as a reason why their behaviour should be excused or allowances made. Mental stress / illness happens to lots of us in a lifetime. It is not - and should not - be a pretext for selfishness or rudeness. Understanding: yes. Help: certainly. But enough with the “poor little me” nonsense. All of us have crosses to bear, some of them made worse by money and other worries.

    And it was his mother’s rather empty life as a celebrity post her divorce which made her vulnerable to press attention and exploitation by celebrity hangers-on. So if he was concerned to avoid this, he is behaving bloody oddly by choosing the same for him and his family.
    But imagine growing up in a world where your "father" - and your next King - is widely assumed not to be your biological father. And your mother is felt by many to have been executed on the say so of others in the Royal family.

    That is one hell of a high-end soap opera to be born into......
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2020
    Stocky said:

    Anorak said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    You do not need to pluralise Sussex at all.

    You can't go calling H&M "The Sussex". That just does not sound right.
    You call them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
    For now.

    Would be quite hillarious if she got told she can't use the "Sussex Royal" brand that has been registered in the USA.
    They could lose the HRH but keep the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor did when in exile in the South of France
    That seems a likely solution to me, unless the Sussexeses row back from this calamitous misjudgement.
    Yes, cut all royal funds and perks if they want to move to the US or Canada and become self financing but they can keep the token title of Duke and Duchess which are not royal titles by themselves anyway
    On what grounds should they keep Duke and Duchess titles?
    On the grounds he remains the Queens grandson and to remove them would be petty, spiteful, vindictive, and generally pour petrol on an already inflamed situation.
    Isn`t family embarrassing.
    Only my inlaws. *My* side are paragons of decency, obviously. *cough*
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    With shit like this, I don't blame Harry and Meghan in the slightest (Mail, natch). The feigned shock in the tabloids today is vomit-inducing hypocrisy.
    https://twitter.com/lusamedusa/status/1215196671686127616

    Quite right. The poor woman was a hate figure to the miserable, hypocritical British press. You only live once. I can perfectly understand their wish to tell those vultures where to stick it.
    Oh let’s not be ridiculous. No-one forces her to read this rubbish. Everyone else in the Royals - from HMQ down - has faced appalling criticism, some of it unfair. And have got on with it. What makes this couple so entitled and special that they should be immune from criticism? There has undoubtedly been a strand of racist misogynistic criticism but they are able to insulate themselves from it far more than most. They give the impression of wanting all the nice stuff without any of the duties. Tough. Time for them to push off to Canada or wherever as plain Mr and Mrs Wales and get on with life.

    On a more general point I find the endless harping on about the damage caused by his mother’s death more than a bit tedious. Plenty of others suffer the loss of parents at a young age or other hurtful and traumatising family difficulties and learn to cope. There is something a bit childish about someone almost 40 focusing on one thing as a reason why their behaviour should be excused or allowances made. Mental stress / illness happens to lots of us in a lifetime. It is not - and should not - be a pretext for selfishness or rudeness. Understanding: yes. Help: certainly. But enough with the “poor little me” nonsense. All of us have crosses to bear, some of them made worse by money and other worries.

    And it was his mother’s rather empty life as a celebrity post her divorce which made her vulnerable to press attention and exploitation by celebrity hangers-on. So if he was concerned to avoid this, he is behaving bloody oddly by choosing the same for him and his family.
    But imagine growing up in a world where your "father" - and your next King - is widely assumed not to be your biological father. And your mother is felt by many to have been executed on the say so of others in the Royal family.

    That is one hell of a high-end soap opera to be born into......
    Spoiler warning on Season 10 of the Crown....
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Stocky said:

    Is there any way of setting up a dedicated thread for those fascinated by Royal news?

    We`ll stop taliking about the royals if you stop talking about Brexit.

    (I`d do a smiley emoji thingy now, but I don`t know how to.)
    colon then close bracket

    :)
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Dura_Ace said:

    Yeah, this has been bugging me as well, thoughts PBers.

    https://twitter.com/charliehtweets/status/1215225768562831360

    The -sex suffix is derived from the Old English nominative case plural so there is a case to be made that its already plural.
    You do not need to pluralise Sussex at all.
    Wasn’t there an East and West Sussex at one rime? Two County Councils?
    Indeed there still is.!!!
    So are there two Sussexes? Or two Sussex’ ?
    One Sussex. Two Sussi.
    Presumable we can change the title to Nova Scotia or Manitoba - I'm sure Meghan would love to be the Duchess of Womanitoba!
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    edited January 2020

    Is anyone playing Rayner for deputy?

    I`ve been laying her (don`t) over last few days and I`m hoping I`ll get an opportunity to trade out. I find it hard to understand how Murray is still 22 with BF given that he already has the nominations in the bag.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726

    Stocky said:

    Is there any way of setting up a dedicated thread for those fascinated by Royal news?

    We`ll stop taliking about the royals if you stop talking about Brexit.

    (I`d do a smiley emoji thingy now, but I don`t know how to.)
    colon then close bracket

    :)
    :)
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On political betting, nice to have been able to lay Barry Gardiner at 40.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,214

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Oh let’s not be ridiculous. No-one forces her to read this rubbish. Everyone else in the Royals - from HMQ down - has faced appalling criticism, some of it unfair. And have got on with it. What makes this couple so entitled and special that they should be immune from criticism? There has undoubtedly been a strand of racist misogynistic criticism but they are able to insulate themselves from it far more than most. They give the impression of wanting all the nice stuff without any of the duties. Tough. Time for them to push off to Canada or wherever as plain Mr and Mrs Wales and get on with life.

    On a more general point I find the endless harping on about the damage caused by his mother’s death more than a bit tedious. Plenty of others suffer the loss of parents at a young age or other hurtful and traumatising family difficulties and learn to cope. There is something a bit childish about someone almost 40 focusing on one thing as a reason why their behaviour should be excused or allowances made. Mental stress / illness happens to lots of us in a lifetime. It is not - and should not - be a pretext for selfishness or rudeness. Understanding: yes. Help: certainly. But enough with the “poor little me” nonsense. All of us have crosses to bear, some of them made worse by money and other worries.

    And it was his mother’s rather empty life as a celebrity post her divorce which made her vulnerable to press attention and exploitation by celebrity hangers-on. So if he was concerned to avoid this, he is behaving bloody oddly by choosing the same for him and his family.
    But imagine growing up in a world where your "father" - and your next King - is widely assumed not to be your biological father. And your mother is felt by many to have been executed on the say so of others in the Royal family.

    That is one hell of a high-end soap opera to be born into......
    My mother grew up in a world where at the same age as Harry she was having to cower in an air raid shelter night after night then was split from her father and brothers for 6 years while they all separately hid in Rome, knowing that because of their Jewish ancestry they might be betrayed, and not knowing what had happened to their father who stayed behind in a repeatedly bombed city. Oh - and there was the hunger too and coming back to live in a bomb damaged home now occupied by soldiers.

    Lots of people had and have it far worse than Harry and did not nor do have all his advantages and comforts.

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Stocky said:

    Is anyone playing Rayner for deputy?

    I`ve been laying her (don`t) over last few days and I`m hoping I`ll get an opportunity to trade out. I find it hard to understand how Murray is still 22 with BF given that he already has the nominations in the bag.
    Murray's big problem is Starmer being a strong favourite. No way can Leader and Deputy both be blokes.....
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    As usual, Matt nails it:
    twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1215009308066357248

    I am guessing they are too weird even for Big Dom's Team Avengers?
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726

    On political betting, nice to have been able to lay Barry Gardiner at 40.

    Well played. Brave though.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226

    This is quite an interesting observation.

    Jeremy Corbyn will stop being leader in April. But he won’t stop being Jeremy Corbyn — the Jeremy Corbyn, that is, who spent decades campaigning and speaking about his political passions, and who will be given a new freedom when he steps down. That’s why Labour is going to find it impossible to escape from his shadow in 2020 — and beyond.
    I was at a party meeting last night and met a chap there who's a friend of Jon Lansman. He told us that 18 months ago Jeremy really wanted to stand down and had to be persuaded quite assiduously by Lansman and McDonnell to stay on.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Anorak said:
    For one night only, the Palace of Westminster is going to be rebranded Bongoland....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited January 2020
    kinabalu said:

    This is quite an interesting observation.

    Jeremy Corbyn will stop being leader in April. But he won’t stop being Jeremy Corbyn — the Jeremy Corbyn, that is, who spent decades campaigning and speaking about his political passions, and who will be given a new freedom when he steps down. That’s why Labour is going to find it impossible to escape from his shadow in 2020 — and beyond.
    I was at a party meeting last night and met a chap there who's a friend of Jon Lansman. He told us that 18 months ago Jeremy really wanted to stand down and had to be persuaded quite assiduously by Lansman and McDonnell to stay on.
    These kind of stories were reported over the past couple of years, but always officially denied as smear stories by the Tories or disgruntled Labour MPs trying to get rid of a popular leader.

    I think the article has a point though. No longer will Jezza have try do this balancing act of trying to claim "comprised" position on things like Trident and it seems unlikely he will do a May and go to the backbenches and become a team player by being rather quiet / toe the party line.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    kinabalu said:

    This is quite an interesting observation.

    Jeremy Corbyn will stop being leader in April. But he won’t stop being Jeremy Corbyn — the Jeremy Corbyn, that is, who spent decades campaigning and speaking about his political passions, and who will be given a new freedom when he steps down. That’s why Labour is going to find it impossible to escape from his shadow in 2020 — and beyond.
    I was at a party meeting last night and met a chap there who's a friend of Jon Lansman. He told us that 18 months ago Jeremy really wanted to stand down and had to be persuaded quite assiduously by Lansman and McDonnell to stay on.
    If that is true, Lansman and McDonnell have a lot to answer for. What have they achieved?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,798
    nunu2 said:

    The Labout manifesto of 2019 will be implemented by the tories within 40 years.
    No need for labour to hate them then.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    justin124 said:

    kinabalu said:

    This is quite an interesting observation.

    Jeremy Corbyn will stop being leader in April. But he won’t stop being Jeremy Corbyn — the Jeremy Corbyn, that is, who spent decades campaigning and speaking about his political passions, and who will be given a new freedom when he steps down. That’s why Labour is going to find it impossible to escape from his shadow in 2020 — and beyond.
    I was at a party meeting last night and met a chap there who's a friend of Jon Lansman. He told us that 18 months ago Jeremy really wanted to stand down and had to be persuaded quite assiduously by Lansman and McDonnell to stay on.
    If that is true, Lansman and McDonnell have a lot to answer for. What have they achieved?
    18 more months of controlling the Labour Party?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    If anyone is feeling unnecessarily cheerful about world geopolitics just now, here's an article to dampen the mood:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_D_Bishop/status/1215293792242282496
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    justin124 said:

    If that is true, Lansman and McDonnell have a lot to answer for. What have they achieved?

    Well it's backfired. But it might not have done. JC was riding quite high at the time and the identity of an alternative leader who could both carry the flame and appeal to the electorate was not at all apparent. Still isn't.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited January 2020
    Anorak said:

    justin124 said:

    kinabalu said:

    This is quite an interesting observation.

    Jeremy Corbyn will stop being leader in April. But he won’t stop being Jeremy Corbyn — the Jeremy Corbyn, that is, who spent decades campaigning and speaking about his political passions, and who will be given a new freedom when he steps down. That’s why Labour is going to find it impossible to escape from his shadow in 2020 — and beyond.
    I was at a party meeting last night and met a chap there who's a friend of Jon Lansman. He told us that 18 months ago Jeremy really wanted to stand down and had to be persuaded quite assiduously by Lansman and McDonnell to stay on.
    If that is true, Lansman and McDonnell have a lot to answer for. What have they achieved?
    18 more months of controlling the Labour Party?
    But if Corbyn had resigned and been replaced by Starmer or whoever, the party might now be in office - possibly without a general election having taken place.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Oh let’s not be ridiculous. No-one forces her to read this rubbish. Everyone else in the Royals - from HMQ down - has faced appalling criticism, some of it unfair. And have got on with it. What makes this couple so entitled and special that they should be immune from criticism? There has undoubtedly been a strand of racist misogynistic criticism but they are able to insulate themselves from it far more than most. They give the impression of wanting all the nice stuff without any of the duties. Tough. Time for them to push off to Canada or wherever as plain Mr and Mrs Wales and get on with life.

    On a more general point I find the endless harping on about the damage caused by his mother’s death more than a bit tedious. Plenty of others suffer the loss of parents at a young age or other hurtful and traumatising family difficulties and learn to cope. There is something a bit childish about someone almost 40 focusing on one thing as a reason why their behaviour should be excused or allowances made. Mental stress / illness happens to lots of us in a lifetime. It is not - and should not - be a pretext for selfishness or rudeness. Understanding: yes. Help: certainly. But enough with the “poor little me” nonsense. All of us have crosses to bear, some of them made worse by money and other worries.

    And it was his mother’s rather empty life as a celebrity post her divorce which made her vulnerable to press attention and exploitation by celebrity hangers-on. So if he was concerned to avoid this, he is behaving bloody oddly by choosing the same for him and his family.
    But imagine growing up in a world where your "father" - and your next King - is widely assumed not to be your biological father. And your mother is felt by many to have been executed on the say so of others in the Royal family.

    That is one hell of a high-end soap opera to be born into......
    My mother grew up in a world where at the same age as Harry she was having to cower in an air raid shelter night after night then was split from her father and brothers for 6 years while they all separately hid in Rome, knowing that because of their Jewish ancestry they might be betrayed, and not knowing what had happened to their father who stayed behind in a repeatedly bombed city. Oh - and there was the hunger too and coming back to live in a bomb damaged home now occupied by soldiers.

    Lots of people had and have it far worse than Harry and did not nor do have all his advantages and comforts.

    It really is ridiculous that any of this needs saying. The cult of celebrity has got completely out of hand. They have made their choice now let them f off and get on with it.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    kinabalu said:

    This is quite an interesting observation.

    Jeremy Corbyn will stop being leader in April. But he won’t stop being Jeremy Corbyn — the Jeremy Corbyn, that is, who spent decades campaigning and speaking about his political passions, and who will be given a new freedom when he steps down. That’s why Labour is going to find it impossible to escape from his shadow in 2020 — and beyond.
    I was at a party meeting last night and met a chap there who's a friend of Jon Lansman. He told us that 18 months ago Jeremy really wanted to stand down and had to be persuaded quite assiduously by Lansman and McDonnell to stay on.
    Any more tidbits from the party meeting?

    Makes me wonder where we would be if Labour had backed May`s withdrawal agreement instead of monkeying around. We would have exited 31/3, May (presumably) still leading the Tories, no GE until 2022 .....
  • Options

    If anyone is feeling unnecessarily cheerful about world geopolitics just now, here's an article to dampen the mood:

    twitter.com/Andrew_D_Bishop/status/1215293792242282496

    Eeyore been on the phone. He says he is worried you are trashing his USP by making him look too much of an optimist.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226

    These kind of stories were reported over the past couple of years, but always officially denied as smear stories by the Tories or disgruntled Labour MPs trying to get rid of a popular leader.

    I think the article has a point though. No longer will Jezza have try do this balancing act of trying to claim "comprised" position on things like Trident and it seems unlikely he will do a May and go to the backbenches and become a team player by being rather quiet / toe the party line.

    It's a story that has to be denied whether true or not. I must admit my sense was always that Jeremy did not have a burning desire for power and could easily jack this whole leadership thing in with no regrets or trauma whatsoever. That was, in fact, part of his appeal and it seems it was even truer than I thought. He was ready to go well before the polls turned negative.

    As for what sort of backbencher he will be, I really don't know. I guess a lot of it depends on who the new leader and what the policy direction is.
  • Options
    Awks....

    A Illinois judge has ordered Google to turn over a 12 months' worth of Jussie Smollett's personal electronic data, including his search history, photographs, files and geolocation data to a special prosecutor.

    The search warrant from Chicago police demanded all files and emails associated with Google accounts linked to Smollett and his manager, Frank Gatson, from November 2018 to November 2019.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/jussie-smollett-chicago-google-search-warrant/index.html
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    kinabalu said:

    justin124 said:

    If that is true, Lansman and McDonnell have a lot to answer for. What have they achieved?

    Well it's backfired. But it might not have done. JC was riding quite high at the time and the identity of an alternative leader who could both carry the flame and appeal to the electorate was not at all apparent. Still isn't.
    McDonnell himself could have taken over at that stage.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    justin124 said:

    kinabalu said:

    justin124 said:

    If that is true, Lansman and McDonnell have a lot to answer for. What have they achieved?

    Well it's backfired. But it might not have done. JC was riding quite high at the time and the identity of an alternative leader who could both carry the flame and appeal to the electorate was not at all apparent. Still isn't.
    McDonnell himself could have taken over at that stage.
    *eyes 50/1 betting slip ruefully*
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    I still don't understand why Angela Rayner isn't running, the RLB/Rayner ticket looks lopsided. If it was the other way around I think the hard left would have a very good chance of winning. RLB has been found out to to a bit of a nothing lightweight which many of us suspected from the start.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    edited January 2020
    Stocky said:

    Any more tidbits from the party meeting?

    Makes me wonder where we would be if Labour had backed May`s withdrawal agreement instead of monkeying around. We would have exited 31/3, May (presumably) still leading the Tories, no GE until 2022 .....

    It was very interesting in several ways. Will revert. Re Labour passing the May Deal meaning no GE until 2022 - not so sure about that. The govt needed C&S from the DUP, remember, and the DUP were terminally opposed to the Deal. So there could well still have been an early GE. In which Labour would surely have done better than 202 seats. Ah well. They didn't. It didn't. We didn't. And so there was and it was "Boris" by a distance.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,259
    MaxPB said:

    I still don't understand why Angela Rayner isn't running, the RLB/Rayner ticket looks lopsided. If it was the other way around I think the hard left would have a very good chance of winning. RLB has been found out to to a bit of a nothing lightweight which many of us suspected from the start.

    a) Rayner is not pure enough for them.

    b) She is playing the long game.
  • Options
    justin124 said:

    kinabalu said:

    This is quite an interesting observation.

    Jeremy Corbyn will stop being leader in April. But he won’t stop being Jeremy Corbyn — the Jeremy Corbyn, that is, who spent decades campaigning and speaking about his political passions, and who will be given a new freedom when he steps down. That’s why Labour is going to find it impossible to escape from his shadow in 2020 — and beyond.
    I was at a party meeting last night and met a chap there who's a friend of Jon Lansman. He told us that 18 months ago Jeremy really wanted to stand down and had to be persuaded quite assiduously by Lansman and McDonnell to stay on.
    If that is true, Lansman and McDonnell have a lot to answer for. What have they achieved?
    Again, look at how a Corbyn-led Labour Party outperformed polls in the 2017 election, when CCHQ expected a landslide victory, and hanging on to Corbyn made sense.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    felix said:


    It really is ridiculous that any of this needs saying. The cult of celebrity has got completely out of hand. They have made their choice now let them f off and get on with it.

    It looks to me like a lot of prissy whataboutery. Relative miserabilism is not a terribly productive approach because everybody has a miserable story to tell. If we are talking about a boy who lost his divorced mother in horrific circumstances when he was 12. You can pass over the fact in silence if you like, but you really can't aggressively counter it with "yebbut my mum was in the war, and anyway he's got loadsamoney". Neither point makes any difference.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,826
    edited January 2020

    Cyclefree said:



    Quite right. The poor woman was a hate figure to the miserable, hypocritical British press. You only live once. I can perfectly understand their wish to tell those vultures where to stick it.

    Oh let’s not be ridiculous. No-one forces her to read this rubbish. Everyone else in the Royals - from HMQ down - has faced appalling criticism, some of it unfair. And have got on with it. What makes this couple so entitled and special that they should be immune from criticism? There has undoubtedly been a strand of racist misogynistic criticism but they are able to insulate themselves from it far more than most. They give the impression of wanting all the nice stuff without any of the duties. Tough. Time for them to push off to Canada or wherever as plain Mr and Mrs Wales and get on with life.

    On a more general point I find the endless harping on about the damage caused by his mother’s death more than a bit tedious. Plenty of others suffer the loss of parents at a young age or other hurtful and traumatising family difficulties and learn to cope. There is something a bit childish about someone almost 40 focusing on one thing as a reason why their behaviour should be excused or allowances made. Mental stress / illness happens to lots of us in a lifetime. It is not - and should not - be a pretext for selfishness or rudeness. Understanding: yes. Help: certainly. But enough with the “poor little me” nonsense. All of us have crosses to bear, some of them made worse by money and other worries.

    And it was his mother’s rather empty life as a celebrity post her divorce which made her vulnerable to press attention and exploitation by celebrity hangers-on. So if he was concerned to avoid this, he is behaving bloody oddly by choosing the same for him and his family.
    But imagine growing up in a world where your "father" - and your next King - is widely assumed not to be your biological father. And your mother is felt by many to have been executed on the say so of others in the Royal family.

    That is one hell of a high-end soap opera to be born into......
    You do know that ordinary families have lives with extraordinary moments? Suicides, divorces, illegitimacy, weird in-laws, second cousins in other countries, what her Moira said to our Gavin, which one is dying, which one is gay, who lost their job and who graduated, all the rest of it? Weird shit is what a family is, and you have to send them cards Xmas time regardless. I have considerable sympathy for their situation, albeit lessened by their wealth and stupidity, because they are civilians and it's Not My Business. But soap-opera my bottom... :)
  • Options

    Awks....

    A Illinois judge has ordered Google to turn over a 12 months' worth of Jussie Smollett's personal electronic data, including his search history, photographs, files and geolocation data to a special prosecutor.

    The search warrant from Chicago police demanded all files and emails associated with Google accounts linked to Smollett and his manager, Frank Gatson, from November 2018 to November 2019.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/jussie-smollett-chicago-google-search-warrant/index.html

    Awks if you think this could only happen in Russia or China.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited January 2020
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    This is quite an interesting observation.

    Jeremy Corbyn will stop being leader in April. But he won’t stop being Jeremy Corbyn — the Jeremy Corbyn, that is, who spent decades campaigning and speaking about his political passions, and who will be given a new freedom when he steps down. That’s why Labour is going to find it impossible to escape from his shadow in 2020 — and beyond.
    I was at a party meeting last night and met a chap there who's a friend of Jon Lansman. He told us that 18 months ago Jeremy really wanted to stand down and had to be persuaded quite assiduously by Lansman and McDonnell to stay on.
    Any more tidbits from the party meeting?

    Makes me wonder where we would be if Labour had backed May`s withdrawal agreement instead of monkeying around. We would have exited 31/3, May (presumably) still leading the Tories, no GE until 2022 .....
    No structural disadvantage in the 2022 GE either. Corbyn may have been unpopular but fundamentally even at 48% leave, constituencies were always tilted toward that side of the argument particularly as plenty of (quiet) remainers had reconciled themselves to Brexit.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Any more tidbits from the party meeting?

    Makes me wonder where we would be if Labour had backed May`s withdrawal agreement instead of monkeying around. We would have exited 31/3, May (presumably) still leading the Tories, no GE until 2022 .....

    It was very interesting in several ways. Will revert. Re Labour passing the May Deal meaning no GE until 2022 - not so sure about that. The govt needed C&S from the DUP, remember, and the DUP were terminally opposed to that Deal. So there could well still have been an early GE. In which Labout would surely have done better than 202 seats. Ah well. They didn't. It didn't. We didn't. And so there was and it was "Boris" by a distance.
    If Labour MPs had been whipped to support the WA the Tories wouldn`t have needed the DUP.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    Stocky said:

    If Labour MPs had been whipped to support the WA the Tories wouldn`t have needed the DUP.

    Sure - WA passed and Brexit.

    But how to then govern until 2022?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Any more tidbits from the party meeting?

    Makes me wonder where we would be if Labour had backed May`s withdrawal agreement instead of monkeying around. We would have exited 31/3, May (presumably) still leading the Tories, no GE until 2022 .....

    It was very interesting in several ways. Will revert. Re Labour passing the May Deal meaning no GE until 2022 - not so sure about that. The govt needed C&S from the DUP, remember, and the DUP were terminally opposed to that Deal. So there could well still have been an early GE. In which Labout would surely have done better than 202 seats. Ah well. They didn't. It didn't. We didn't. And so there was and it was "Boris" by a distance.
    If Labour MPs had been whipped to support the WA the Tories wouldn`t have needed the DUP.
    They would have only needed to abstain, on the basis that it's not the deal they would have negotiated but it's better than leaving with no deal.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,214
    IshmaelZ said:

    felix said:


    It really is ridiculous that any of this needs saying. The cult of celebrity has got completely out of hand. They have made their choice now let them f off and get on with it.

    It looks to me like a lot of prissy whataboutery. Relative miserabilism is not a terribly productive approach because everybody has a miserable story to tell. If we are talking about a boy who lost his divorced mother in horrific circumstances when he was 12. You can pass over the fact in silence if you like, but you really can't aggressively counter it with "yebbut my mum was in the war, and anyway he's got loadsamoney". Neither point makes any difference.
    But that is the point. All of us have or are suffering misery in our lives. There is nothing special about this couple. So enough with the sob stories and the expectation that they should be excused the demands of simple politeness and obligations to those around them that everyone else is expected to - and usually abides by.
  • Options
    RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,158
    MaxPB said:

    I still don't understand why Angela Rayner isn't running, the RLB/Rayner ticket looks lopsided. If it was the other way around I think the hard left would have a very good chance of winning. RLB has been found out to to a bit of a nothing lightweight which many of us suspected from the start.

    Because unlike RLB, the Corbyn/UNITE machine can't control her and don't trust her ( a very factional Corbynite I know referred to her as a "right-wing trojan horse").
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    If Labour MPs had been whipped to support the WA the Tories wouldn`t have needed the DUP.

    Sure - WA passed and Brexit.

    But how to then govern until 2022?
    They would have governed with or without DUP support, given Labour had no stomach for a GE.
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    MaxPB said:

    I still don't understand why Angela Rayner isn't running, the RLB/Rayner ticket looks lopsided. If it was the other way around I think the hard left would have a very good chance of winning. RLB has been found out to to a bit of a nothing lightweight which many of us suspected from the start.

    Just speculating but:

    I think Angela Rayne has a fairly good chance of becoming the deputy leader, at least in art because her opponents are not as effective/well known as those trying for leader, thus ensuring the hard left has at least one of the top jobs?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    justin124 said:

    McDonnell himself could have taken over at that stage.

    I suppose they didn't want to risk it. Jeremy still had plenty of USP in the tank at that stage.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    Sandpit said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Any more tidbits from the party meeting?

    Makes me wonder where we would be if Labour had backed May`s withdrawal agreement instead of monkeying around. We would have exited 31/3, May (presumably) still leading the Tories, no GE until 2022 .....

    It was very interesting in several ways. Will revert. Re Labour passing the May Deal meaning no GE until 2022 - not so sure about that. The govt needed C&S from the DUP, remember, and the DUP were terminally opposed to that Deal. So there could well still have been an early GE. In which Labout would surely have done better than 202 seats. Ah well. They didn't. It didn't. We didn't. And so there was and it was "Boris" by a distance.
    If Labour MPs had been whipped to support the WA the Tories wouldn`t have needed the DUP.
    They would have only needed to abstain, on the basis that it's not the deal they would have negotiated but it's better than leaving with no deal.
    Good point
  • Options
    RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,158
    BigRich said:

    MaxPB said:

    I still don't understand why Angela Rayner isn't running, the RLB/Rayner ticket looks lopsided. If it was the other way around I think the hard left would have a very good chance of winning. RLB has been found out to to a bit of a nothing lightweight which many of us suspected from the start.

    Just speculating but:

    I think Angela Rayne has a fairly good chance of becoming the deputy leader, at least in art because her opponents are not as effective/well known as those trying for leader, thus ensuring the hard left has at least one of the top jobs?
    Rayner is 'Tribune' soft left, not far left. That's much of the reason why the actual far left don't trust her.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,726
    Stocky said:

    Is anyone playing Rayner for deputy?

    I`ve been laying her (don`t) over last few days and I`m hoping I`ll get an opportunity to trade out. I find it hard to understand how Murray is still 22 with BF given that he already has the nominations in the bag.
    Murray now down to 6 with BF. Was 22 not long ago (above).
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    edited January 2020
    Stocky said:

    They would have governed with or without DUP support, given Labour had no stomach for a GE.

    Minority Con govt with no conf & supply partner, plus the ERG alienated, having got its flagship policy through on Labour votes? I'd have given that a few months max. And Labour DID want a GE back then remember. In fact, that was a scenario I often envisaged. Labour collaborate (perhaps unofficially and partially) to get the WA through in return for a "post Brexit" GE later in 2019. But it was not to be. Labour chose a different path and it led into the sidings for one reason or another.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,798
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sad.

    A Brazilian judge on Wednesday ordered Netflix to stop showing a Christmas special that some called blasphemous for depicting Jesus as a gay man and which prompted a bomb attack on the satirists behind the programme.

    The ruling by a Rio de Janeiro judge, Benedicto Abicair, responded to a petition by a Brazilian Catholic organisation that argued the “honour of millions of Catholics” was hurt by the airing of The First Temptation of Christ. The special was produced by the Rio-based film company Porta dos Fundos, whose headquarters was targeted in the Christmas Eve attack.

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/09/brazil-orders-netflix-remove-gay-jesus-comedy-first-temptation-christ?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    They may have shown it at Christmas, but does that make it a Christmas movie?
    LOL. Well played.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,003
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Oh let’s not be ridiculous. No-one forces her to read this rubbish. Everyone else in the Royals - from HMQ down - has faced appalling criticism, some of it unfair. And have got on with it. What makes this couple so entitled and special that they should be immune from criticism

    On a more general point I find the endless harping on about the damage caused by his mother’s death more than a bit tedious. Plenty of others suffer the loss of parents at a young age or other hurtful and traumatising family difficulties and learn to cope. There is something a bit childish about someone almost 40 focusing on one thing as a reason why their behaviour should be excused or allowances made. Mental stress / illness happens to lots of us in a lifetime. It is not - and should not - be a pretext for selfishness or rudeness. Understanding: yes. Help: certainly. But enough with the “poor little me” nonsense. All of us have crosses to bear, some of them made worse by money and other worries.

    And it was his mother’s rather empty life as a celebrity post her divorce which made her vulnerable to press attention and exploitation by celebrity hangers-on. So if he was concerned to avoid this, he is behaving bloody oddly by choosing the same for him and his family.
    But imagine growing up in a world where your "father" - and your next King - is widely assumed not to be your biological father. And your mother is felt by many to have been executed on the say so of others in the Royal family.

    That is one hell of a high-end soap opera to be born into......
    My mother grew up in a world where at the same age as Harry she was having to cower in an air raid shelter night after night then was split from her father and brothers for 6 years while they all separately hid in Rome, knowing that because of their Jewish ancestry they might be betrayed, and not knowing what had happened to their father who stayed behind in a repeatedly bombed city. Oh - and there was the hunger too and coming back to live in a bomb damaged home now occupied by soldiers.

    Lots of people had and have it far worse than Harry and did not nor do have all his advantages and comforts.

    To be fair, Ms Cyclefree, your mother’s friends and neighbours were all, or at least many of them, in a similar position. Harry only had his older brother.
    And yes, I can recall the bombers overhead in the middle of the war.
    Of course, I had nothing near your mothers problems
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,798
    edited January 2020

    Anorak said:

    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    You do not need to pluralise Sussex at all.

    You can't go calling H&M "The Sussex". That just does not sound right.
    You call them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
    For now.

    Would be quite hillarious if she got told she can't use the "Sussex Royal" brand that has been registered in the USA.
    It shouldn't have surprised me, but did, to find out today that they don't actually live in Sussex.
    The aristocracy's casual appropriation if bits of geography is a minor but not insignificant factor in my general irritation with the whole institution.

    Maybe this is all a conspiracy to make those further up the order of precedence look good by comparison.
    Next you'll be telling me the Prince of Wales doesn't live in Caerphilly and that Andrew doesn't live the shadow of York Minster.

    Madness.
    The Prince of Wales is a highly offensive title. Many Welsh people see it as a symbol of subjugation, dislike it heartily, and would like to see it abolished.
    Do they? Granted I'm not the target audience for the outrage, but I'm surprised I've never heard that before.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,003
    Deleted. FFS on a iPad
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,798

    Anorak said:

    With shit like this, I don't blame Harry and Meghan in the slightest (Mail, natch). The feigned shock in the tabloids today is vomit-inducing hypocrisy.
    https://twitter.com/lusamedusa/status/1215196671686127616

    Quite right. The poor woman was a hate figure to the miserable, hypocritical British press. You only live once. I can perfectly understand their wish to tell those vultures where to stick it.
    Except they haven't done that, since they say they intend to continue some royal duties. I like Harry and Meghan, and it would be easier to defend their action if they had just told the press to stick it and they were going to live privately from now on, but that is not what they have done.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    This thread has LEFT the race.
This discussion has been closed.