Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly there’s the prospect of a vaccine, perhaps even by th

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited July 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly there’s the prospect of a vaccine, perhaps even by the end of the year

It has repeatedly been said over the last five months that the only way that life can really return back to normal will be if an effective vaccine becomes available. There have been reports that more than 100 research teams around the world are working hard on the challenge and now we’ve got news about two of them.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • First ... yet again!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,595
    "Twitter hack: Obama, Bezos and Kardashian targeted by Bitcoin scam

    Hackers break into the accounts of technology moguls, politicians, celebrities and global companies in an apparent Bitcoin scam."

    https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-hack-obama-bezos-and-kardashian-targeted-by-bitcoin-scam-12029394
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    I don't much like the idea of scientists leaking information to the media. It makes me suspicious. Science operates through the crucible of empiricism not tabloid journalism.

    So I'm taking this vaccine 'news,' in which Astra Zeneca have a massive commercial interest, with a healthy degree of scepticism for now.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002
    The guy that was building the Death Star just got choked...

    https://twitter.com/EliStokols/status/1283565315662794753
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,464

    I don't much like the idea of scientists leaking information to the media. It makes me suspicious. Science operates through the crucible of empiricism not tabloid journalism.

    So I'm taking this vaccine 'news,' in which Astra Zeneca have a massive commercial interest, with a healthy degree of scepticism for now.

    I hope it's right. But as OGH says, PM Johnson needs some good news, so I do wonder about this 'leak'.
    So add me to the 'sceptical' list!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Why the hell did the Gov't want failing Grayling as boss of an important committee ?

    Because he does what he's told?
    He tries to do what he's told. Then fails.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    Hey, I've decided the time has come to give something back. Send 0.01 BTC and I'll triple it . BTC.howthickarethepeoplethatfallforthis is the wallet address.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222

    I don't much like the idea of scientists leaking information to the media. It makes me suspicious. Science operates through the crucible of empiricism not tabloid journalism.

    So I'm taking this vaccine 'news,' in which Astra Zeneca have a massive commercial interest, with a healthy degree of scepticism for now.

    I don’t think the commercial interest will be all that massive for a company the size of Astra Zeneca. They’ll be producing it at a relatively low price, and most of the manufacturing is contracted out to other companies.

    And they’ve nothing to gain from hyping something that doesn’t work.

    And it will be at least a couple more months before they know for sure anyway.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837
    Pulpstar said:

    Hey, I've decided the time has come to give something back. Send 0.01 BTC and I'll triple it . BTC.howthickarethepeoplethatfallforthis is the wallet address.

    I reckon its a scam, if you send it to BTC.thiswillprotectyou, you will be safe.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    eek said:

    Aheatmap of covid cases in florida- it doesn't look good https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1283134585665200131

    Nice Graphic.

    Cue the arguments again of splitting society into two completely seperate groups the under 40s and over 40s.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    I don't much like the idea of scientists leaking information to the media. It makes me suspicious. Science operates through the crucible of empiricism not tabloid journalism.

    So I'm taking this vaccine 'news,' in which Astra Zeneca have a massive commercial interest, with a healthy degree of scepticism for now.

    The leaks are more likely related to it's upcoming publication in The Lancet. Lots more people will have seen the paper now.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.

    This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    We need a UK equivalent of the Lincoln project. The Churchill project perhaps?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Aheatmap of covid cases in florida- it doesn't look good https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1283134585665200131

    Nice Graphic.

    Cue the arguments again of splitting society into two completely seperate groups the under 40s and over 40s.
    Deaths will lag any initial infection bomb by loads of this is repeated elsewhere
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Aheatmap of covid cases in florida- it doesn't look good https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1283134585665200131

    Nice Graphic.

    Cue the arguments again of splitting society into two completely seperate groups the under 40s and over 40s.
    Society seems to manage to do that quite well itself, without any assistance.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102

    Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.

    This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.

    To be honest I am very cautious over celebrating too soon
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,464
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    To be strictly accurate the BBC (now?) says that 'Sources say Mr Lewis..... told the Tory chief whip he would back Mr Grayling.'.
    Which surely suggests that one of the usual creeps has 'put the word about'!
    It will be interesting to see what Lewis' constituency officers say. New Forest East has, recently anyway been 'safe'.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    I think it's highly likely that this parliament will come to an end in the next four years, and that there will be an election. In that election, the libdems will be hyped, but will fall short of expectations.
    Was there an election in the last 40 years when that was not the case*? The question is by how much.

    *Allowing for party name changes/allianes etc.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    One mans chaos is Cummings 4d chess game theory being played out (apparently!).
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    I don't much like the idea of scientists leaking information to the media. It makes me suspicious. Science operates through the crucible of empiricism not tabloid journalism.

    So I'm taking this vaccine 'news,' in which Astra Zeneca have a massive commercial interest, with a healthy degree of scepticism for now.

    Your skepticism is commendable, and well deserved. As I said, beware guff. Especially if a charlatan by the name of Boris Johnson is a potential beneficiary.

    Incidentally, I realise that Astra Zeneca is promoted as a “British” company by English media, but Swedish media puts a different, and more accurate, label on the organisation.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    Lads, it’s Oxford University.

    Don’t get your hopes up.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002

    One mans chaos is Cummings 4d chess game theory being played out (apparently!).

    For such a genius (sic), Dom seems pretty bad at actual politics
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Aheatmap of covid cases in florida- it doesn't look good https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1283134585665200131

    Nice Graphic.

    Cue the arguments again of splitting society into two completely seperate groups the under 40s and over 40s.
    Society seems to manage to do that quite well itself, without any assistance.
    Think about your statement for 10 seconds. How many parents do you know over 40? How many teachers are over 40? How many trains/busses insist on over/under40s separation?(The suggestions were not for during lockdow, but to get out of lockdown).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    I think it's highly likely that this parliament will come to an end in the next four years, and that there will be an election. In that election, the libdems will be hyped, but will fall short of expectations.
    Doesnt always happen, one of my first political bets was a 33/1 winner on LD seats in the 97 election well above the line.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837
    Scott_xP said:

    One mans chaos is Cummings 4d chess game theory being played out (apparently!).

    For such a genius (sic), Dom seems pretty bad at actual politics
    Complete takeover of the Tory party by bluekip, 80 seat majority and referendum win, where did it all go wrong?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    Why on earth does the government get to “vet and approve” opposition members? Very sinister. Slippery slope stuff that.

    In a democracy, it is the electorate that choose the opposition, not the government.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002

    80 seat majority

    Really?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    Why on earth does the government get to “vet and approve” opposition members? Very sinister. Slippery slope stuff that.

    In a democracy, it is the electorate that choose the opposition, not the government.
    On a security committee I think a level of scrutiny is fair. Should we allow someone who spent a mysterious 3 years in Russia or someone who gets paid 100k to "play tennis" with a Russian oligarch access for example?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,464

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    You think the last few years will be looked back on as a period of good government?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    Or they sabotaged their own government, illegally prorogued parliament and undermine the civil service? There is that too!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    ... In that election, the libdems will be hyped, but will fall short of expectations.
    You can say that about every election the Lib Dems ever fought.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002
    Jonathan said:

    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.

    A Brexit deal so bad even David Davis has disowned it...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    You think the last few years will be looked back on as a period of good government?
    The Cameron coalition was good government but then when looking at this government no government anywhere has had a pandemic to deal with so who knows what the final verdict will be
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    ... In that election, the libdems will be hyped, but will fall short of expectations.
    You can say that about every election the Lib Dems ever fought.
    Ill make the opposite case, ideal ground for LDs is actually a centrist Labour leader whereas intuitively on first impressions they should do well with a leftist Labour leader. So they wont be as hyped this time, but will do better than with Corbyn around. They may be value on the upside for the first time since Blair.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,428
    I thought Parliamentary committees were supposed to try to avoid being overtly party political? It's incredibly damaging for Johnson to try to enforce party discipline by removing the Tory whip from Julian Lewis.

    A degree of independence from backbench MPs has always been a feature of the Westminster system, and we can see now that Johnson is determined to squeeze any independence out of his party on all matters, not just Brexit.

    It's a very dangerous development for our political system.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/15/chris-grayling-fails-to-become-intelligence-and-security-chair
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Aheatmap of covid cases in florida- it doesn't look good https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1283134585665200131

    Nice Graphic.

    Cue the arguments again of splitting society into two completely seperate groups the under 40s and over 40s.
    Society seems to manage to do that quite well itself, without any assistance.
    Think about your statement for 10 seconds. How many parents do you know over 40? How many teachers are over 40? How many trains/busses insist on over/under40s separation?(The suggestions were not for during lockdow, but to get out of lockdown).
    Er... cool your jets man. It is slightly too early in the morning for ultra-pedantry. It is just possible that I was trying to be amusing. Obviously the wrong forum. I’ll use one of those emoji things the next time, so nobody has to do anything difficult, like think.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    Scott_xP said:

    One mans chaos is Cummings 4d chess game theory being played out (apparently!).

    For such a genius (sic), Dom seems pretty bad at actual politics
    You’re assuming his purpose, there.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    On your terms, it's like trading the Mercedes in for an Austin A35. It's still a car!
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    It is but it's going to be a clusterf**k Brexit of epic proportions attached to a fundamental restructuring of the economy due to Covid 19...

    We could probably survive one or the other as while they impacted particular sectors of the economy other sectors weren't impacted by the change. But both together and oh boy the next few years are going to be fun for people.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    Why on earth does the government get to “vet and approve” opposition members? Very sinister. Slippery slope stuff that.

    In a democracy, it is the electorate that choose the opposition, not the government.
    On a security committee I think a level of scrutiny is fair. Should we allow someone who spent a mysterious 3 years in Russia or someone who gets paid 100k to "play tennis" with a Russian oligarch access for example?
    Equally such considerations should apply in spades as to who you would want charing such a committee. Someone who manage to unite a majority of the committee against him before even getting the job doesn’t seem ideal.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Scott_xP said:

    One mans chaos is Cummings 4d chess game theory being played out (apparently!).

    For such a genius (sic), Dom seems pretty bad at actual politics
    Complete takeover of the Tory party by bluekip, 80 seat majority and referendum win, where did it all go wrong?
    Mass unemployment, collapse in international trade, and the dissolution of the Union.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,213

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    ... In that election, the libdems will be hyped, but will fall short of expectations.
    You can say that about every election the Lib Dems ever fought.
    (Except 1997)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    That idiocy is Bozo’s fault in the first place.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    I think the hardcore loyalists wake up a bit later. Before 8 pb speaks a lot of common sense!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    I think the hardcore loyalists wake up a bit later. Before 8 pb speaks a lot of common sense!
    They need time for their medication to kick in?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    If you think this site is predominantly left wing you are not paying attention. BluestBlue, Sandpit, Casino, Square root, LadyG, Pagan, etc, etc will all be along later.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    Why on earth does the government get to “vet and approve” opposition members? Very sinister. Slippery slope stuff that.

    In a democracy, it is the electorate that choose the opposition, not the government.
    On a security committee I think a level of scrutiny is fair. Should we allow someone who spent a mysterious 3 years in Russia or someone who gets paid 100k to "play tennis" with a Russian oligarch access for example?
    Equally such considerations should apply in spades as to who you would want charing such a committee. Someone who manage to unite a majority of the committee against him before even getting the job doesn’t seem ideal.
    There is also the issue of whether the failure to spot a plot amongst 5 of his 8 peers might hinder his ability to spot a foreign more sophisticated plot.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited July 2020
    R4: Tory Rifkind accusing the PM of “total incompetence“ over the security committee.

    If he has succeeded it would have “destroyed the whole purpose of the intelligence committee”.

    Calls for whoever was advising him to be sacked.

    Rifkind says PM blocked the Russia report not because of its contents but out of spite because Dominic Grieve did the work on it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.
    I have never been on the street and nor would I

    Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    We’re in the middle of a national crisis. If they had done polls in 1940, Chamberlain would have been miles ahead even through the Norway debate.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    Why on earth does the government get to “vet and approve” opposition members? Very sinister. Slippery slope stuff that.

    In a democracy, it is the electorate that choose the opposition, not the government.
    On a security committee I think a level of scrutiny is fair. Should we allow someone who spent a mysterious 3 years in Russia or someone who gets paid 100k to "play tennis" with a Russian oligarch access for example?
    Issues such as that ought to be highlighted to the relevant electorate by media and by other parties during a general election or by-election. If the electors in that constituency don’t mind then they are free to elect the MP of their choice. And that MP is then free to serve in parliament and any parliamentary committee. Anything less is the slippery slope.

    This government can’t even “vet” itself, let alone the opposition.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    Watch this and ask yourself is this a Country that is accurately reporting Covid deaths.

    https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-cases-are-overwhelming-south-africa-12029281
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    If you think this site is predominantly left wing you are not paying attention. BluestBlue, Sandpit, Casino, Square root, LadyG, Pagan, etc, etc will all be along later.
    i would suggest it is dominated by pro EU remain posters more than specifically left wing
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition again. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    ... In that election, the libdems will be hyped, but will fall short of expectations.
    You can say that about every election the Lib Dems ever fought.
    (Except 1997)
    I was going to praise Charlie Kennedy, but your dad doesn’t like it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    I think the hardcore loyalists wake up a bit later. Before 8 pb speaks a lot of common sense!
    ...or Matron doesn't allow them access to the computers before 8 o clock.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    IanB2 said:

    R4: Tory Rifkind accusing the PM of “total incompetence“ over the security committee.

    If he has succeeded it would have “destroyed the whole purpose of the intelligence committee”.

    Calls for whoever was advising him to be sacked.

    Rifkind says PM blocked the Russia report not because of its contents but out of spite because Dominic Grieve did the work on it.

    i could believe the last paragraph
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    Pulpstar said:

    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Aheatmap of covid cases in florida- it doesn't look good https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1283134585665200131

    Nice Graphic.

    Cue the arguments again of splitting society into two completely seperate groups the under 40s and over 40s.
    Deaths will lag any initial infection bomb by loads of this is repeated elsewhere
    It will be and remember those people who have been tested were probably infectious for 3-7 days before becoming ill enough to need a test.

    The lag times here are the biggest issue with Covid 19... (3-7 days of being infectious before becoming ill, another 7-10 days before possibly needing hospital treatment, + a few more days before getting better).

    1) Florida and Texas are already out of ICU beds and a lot of people are only at the testing stage
    2) Most people I know who have had it are still feeling ill 3 months later.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.
    I have never been on the street and nor would I

    Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such
    As such you own a part of the shambles we find ourselves in. You have placed and continue to place a nationalist political ideology over pragmatism and administrative competence, the very opposite of what Conservatism was supposed to be about.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    Pulpstar said:

    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Aheatmap of covid cases in florida- it doesn't look good https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1283134585665200131

    Nice Graphic.

    Cue the arguments again of splitting society into two completely seperate groups the under 40s and over 40s.
    Deaths will lag any initial infection bomb by loads of this is repeated elsewhere
    Obviously it's a life and death matter, so forgive a robust metaphor.

    It's exactly like those 20 something's are occupying the fourth floor flat of a poorly clad tower block.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    If you think this site is predominantly left wing you are not paying attention. BluestBlue, Sandpit, Casino, Square root, LadyG, Pagan, etc, etc will all be along later.
    i would suggest it is dominated by pro EU remain posters more than specifically left wing
    You really are not paying attention in that case.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.
    I have never been on the street and nor would I

    Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such
    Why do you spend so long trying to justify to people why you remain conservative member. To me it just shows that you aren't bright enough to see that the Tory party has become UKIP without Farage...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited July 2020

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    If you think this site is predominantly left wing you are not paying attention. BluestBlue, Sandpit, Casino, Square root, LadyG, Pagan, etc, etc will all be along later.
    i would suggest it is dominated by pro EU remain posters more than specifically left wing
    It’s true that posting here does require a degree of intelligence and judgement. ;)

    (although Eadric et al et al et al often do their best to prove me wrong...)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    And that tells us what exactly for a GE four years away?

    If it's, steady as she goes, Johnson and his team are doing a good job, you may be disappointed down the line.

    On a more positive note for your boy. It does look like he backed the right horse in the vaccine stakes. If that does come to pass, hats off to him.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

    A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

    And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    IanB2 said:

    R4: Tory Rifkind accusing the PM of “total incompetence“ over the security committee.

    If he has succeeded it would have “destroyed the whole purpose of the intelligence committee”.

    Calls for whoever was advising him to be sacked.

    Rifkind says PM blocked the Russia report not because of its contents but out of spite because Dominic Grieve did the work on it.

    Which Rifkind?

    The disgraced former MP for Edinburgh Pentland (and then in exile somewhere in Londonshire)?

    Or the young one who does Radio 4 comedy?
  • theakestheakes Posts: 931
    Vaccine: reminds me of 1955/6 and the race to get a one for Polio. The US and Uk had produced something, then the first had to be withdrawn and the second was delayed, due to over optimism. I was at school and parents had been told the UK one would be available. But that went wrong so we were offered a vaccine from Canada that appeared tried and tested. We all had that one which worked.. It is a salutory lesson in US and UK thinking they are best. It is places that do things quietly that are best. Again Canada seems to have handled the virus much better than ourselves. See they are keeping the border with US closed for another 6 weeks at least!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    eek said:

    I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

    A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

    And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

    According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Jonathan said:

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    We’re in the middle of a national crisis. If they had done polls in 1940, Chamberlain would have been miles ahead even through the Norway debate.
    Good point. We’ll start paying attention to the thermometers when the dust begins to clear.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    I am picking up that experts in the field have big concerns about short-cutting the approvals process for Covid-19 vaccines. See eg here and here on a quick Google search. Drug approvals typically take a decade or so from initial research to full adoption with several years in Phase 3 trials. Time is a precaution to allow issues to be shaken out.

    The basic issue I think is that a drug powerful enough to have the desired medical effect is powerful enough to have adverse effects too and these aren't well understood, hence the need for trials. A one in a thousand patient effect could easily be missed in an abbreviated trial but if we are going to vaccinate an entire population of the size of the UK in one go on one vaccine that would result in 50 000 patients affected.

    There will be a lot of pressure on authorities to approve these vaccines quickly, particularly if governments have already bought up a specific vaccine ahead of approval that they strongly intend to use. There is also an element of trust here because if people have the slightest doubt about the safety of the vaccine, they won't take it, ensuring herd immunity won't be reached.

    There is a tension between achieving a herd immunity quickly through vaccination and ensuring confidence in the safety of the vaccine.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,929
    IanB2 said:

    R4: Tory Rifkind accusing the PM of “total incompetence“ over the security committee.

    If he has succeeded it would have “destroyed the whole purpose of the intelligence committee”.

    Calls for whoever was advising him to be sacked.

    Rifkind says PM blocked the Russia report not because of its contents but out of spite because Dominic Grieve did the work on it.

    I'm sceptical that any report compiled by MPs will be filled with forensic, technical detail.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    IanB2 said:

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    If you think this site is predominantly left wing you are not paying attention. BluestBlue, Sandpit, Casino, Square root, LadyG, Pagan, etc, etc will all be along later.
    i would suggest it is dominated by pro EU remain posters more than specifically left wing
    It’s true that posting here does require a degree of intelligence and judgement. ;)

    (although Eadric et al et al et al often do their best to prove me wrong...)
    You shouldn't speak ill of (by LadyG.'s account) of the departed.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405

    eek said:

    I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

    A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

    And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

    According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
    The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

    And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

    The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Jonathan said:

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    We’re in the middle of a national crisis. If they had done polls in 1940, Chamberlain would have been miles ahead even through the Norway debate.
    Good point. We’ll start paying attention to the thermometers when the dust begins to clear.
    Doesn’t seem to be working for Trump, though.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    Note also that most of those polled do not reflect the "public view" if that means support for the government. They are well clear of Labour still, but dont have majority support, so if this site is representative it should indeed have more critics than loyalists to the govt (particularly once you include the critics who still feel Tories are the best option).
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,902

    I thought Parliamentary committees were supposed to try to avoid being overtly party political? It's incredibly damaging for Johnson to try to enforce party discipline by removing the Tory whip from Julian Lewis.

    A degree of independence from backbench MPs has always been a feature of the Westminster system, and we can see now that Johnson is determined to squeeze any independence out of his party on all matters, not just Brexit.

    It's a very dangerous development for our political system.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/15/chris-grayling-fails-to-become-intelligence-and-security-chair

    He doesn't care. He's wanted to be PM his whole life and now that he's here everyone should be supporting the amazing job that he's doing. We shouldn't be providing scrutiny or asking questions or having doubts, we should just be agreeing with Him and supporting Him and don't you know who He is. He has a majority of 80 78 and according to chief impartiality officer HYUFD that means he should do whatever he likes to ensure the prosperity of the country the future electoral prospects of the Conservative Party.

    We know that Dom wants to reshape the system in his own Compo image. Perhaps that means we will see the parliamentarians banished to York so that He can simply rule by edict.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102

    eek said:

    I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

    A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

    And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

    According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
    If that is a pop at me it is just so wrong

    I have consistently supported the return to work and warned that prolonged lockdown will see thousands of job loses, each one a crisis for someone

    Indeed it looks like a member of my family is going to be affected shortly

    To suggest it does not matter to me or my family is just unjustified
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    eek said:

    eek said:

    I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

    A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

    And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

    According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
    The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

    And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

    The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
    I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102

    I cannot understand why HMG leads in the polls other than most on this forum do not reflect the public view

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1283554382433464320?s=09

    And that tells us what exactly for a GE four years away?

    If it's, steady as she goes, Johnson and his team are doing a good job, you may be disappointed down the line.

    On a more positive note for your boy. It does look like he backed the right horse in the vaccine stakes. If that does come to pass, hats off to him.
    Boris is not my boy and I look on with dismay at some of the decisions.

    Indeed I called it a shambles earlier today

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837
    eek said:

    I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

    A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

    And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

    I wonder what the proportion is normally, its probably higher than people think, maybe 20-25% of firms cutting jobs each year?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    The only problem for the Democrats is the trap they fell into last time. They hate Trump so much they become hysterical. Yes, he's a moron, but they have become children. I still watch CNN but it's become 'the bitch continually at Trump for being alive' channel.

    They've become cartoon characters themselves. Joe may win, but it wil be narrower than it shoud be. In the end, that was Corbyn's problem. He couldn't shake off the juvenile hatred that permeated his campaign.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    eek said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.
    I have never been on the street and nor would I

    Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such
    Why do you spend so long trying to justify to people why you remain conservative member. To me it just shows that you aren't bright enough to see that the Tory party has become UKIP without Farage...
    Why the insults
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    eek said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

    Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
    Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
    I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

    In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
    According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party
    The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
    The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

    As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.
    The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

    And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times
    By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.
    Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.
    It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come
    Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.
    You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit
    No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.
    Still brexit
    You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.
    I have never been on the street and nor would I

    Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such
    Why do you spend so long trying to justify to people why you remain conservative member. To me it just shows that you aren't bright enough to see that the Tory party has become UKIP without Farage...
    What do you define UKIP without Farage as though?

    If you simply mean pro Brexit then that's a meaningless tautology.
This discussion has been closed.