Also, when did the IFS become a defender of "equality"? I've noticed it more and more that they are pushing the "poor people matter the most" agenda in everything they do. It's a worthwhile goal but their remit isn't to bang on about equality, it's to try and see how the UK is performing economically and what the fiscal outlook is and what kind of multipliers government policy will have. The eat out scheme must have an absolutely massive economic multiplier, it's an extremely cheap scheme at £500m but it will generate huge economic benefits for the hospitality industry and save far more than that within the furlough scheme.
Honestly, it actually doesn't matter if poor people can't afford to eat out, they didn't before the virus and they probably won't afterwards. The sector depends on the middle classes going out and spending money on food, booze and tips. It's quite annoying that their insight was "yeah but poor people" and not what kind of multiplier it would have and how good or bad the scheme would be at getting the sector back on its feet. It's not a big deal for me because I have a team of analysts to do that for me, but our research will never see the light of day, where is the public going to learn this stuff from if the IFS is derelicting it's duty to report on the fiscal outlook.
I give the Eat Out to Help Out two cheers rather than three. There have been some quite unpleasant stories of abuse directed against staff for not having table space for diners and one or two places in coastal towns have opted out of the scheme.
There's also the question of how much the early week business is affecting the later week and weekend business. My experience of a roast lunch on a Saturday was the venue was exceptionally quiet and the staff confirmed the place was rammed Monday-Wednesday and dead the rest of the week.
If the total volume of business is simply being redistributed and isn't increasing, I can't quite see the benefit except to the consumer early in the week obviously. If the total volume of business is up 10% on what would normally happen because of the scheme, that's excellent and to be welcome.
I wonder if the scheme will be prolonged into September but at £500m a month such largesse isn't going to be on the menu forever (pun intended).
In the BBC article the owner of a restaurant chain has said it is having the intended effect of making people more confident in going out and their weekend bookings are also strong -
"The Eat Out to Help Out scheme has really been amazing," said Stephen Wall, managing director and co-founder of restaurant chain Pho. "It's so nice to see our restaurants full of happy staff and customers again.
"It has certainly benefitted our early week figures and seems to have encouraged the British public to dine out safely, as our restaurants are filling up and staying busy throughout the weekend, too."
It is probably the most successful government policy we've seen in absolutely ages. It is definitely having the intended effect of getting people into restaurants and pubs for the first time and showing people that it is safe to go out again. I don't think they will bother keeping it for September because of that reason, there won't be any need for it. If they do then it might only be for an extra couple of weeks while the weather is good and extra outdoor capacity can be put in place.
The restaurants on London Rd in Leicester were packed out, mostly with Asian families, and adjacent to the hotspot area. Thanks, but no thanks...
Dental appointment went well, no major work required on my broken tooth. Continued neglect was the recommendation.
I didn’t realise Leicester was out of lockdown!
It isn't. The restaurants and pubs are open though. The restrictions are pretty meaningless, and not being observed.
If the pubs and bars are open, how is it in lockdown?
In Leicester City, the national easements for 15 August will not apply. That means the following cannot reopen or resume:
casinos skating rinks bowling alleys indoor play areas, including soft play areas exhibition centres and conference halls indoor performances remaining close contact services, which are any treatments on the face such as eyebrow threading or make-up application wedding receptions and celebrations for up to 30 people, in the form of a sit-down meal The following settings must also remain closed in Leicester City:
indoor gyms indoor fitness and dance studios indoor sports courts and facilities indoor swimming pools, including indoor facilities at water parks
Household restrictions People from different households must not meet in a private home or garden. You must not:
host people you do not live with in your home or garden, unless they’re in your support bubble meet people you do not live with in their home or garden travel outside of protected area in Leicester to meet people in their home or garden
Those are no longer current. Nearly everything is now open, pubs, restraints, gyms. People are banned from visiting each others gardens. They have even said we can swm in outdoor public pools. There is a slight hitch in that the last one closed in 1975...
Some issues can be above regular politics, and the big two vote on things together from time to time, which is by definition teaming up with one another.
And despite fiercely opposed in most ways parties might still agree on something fundamental. Indeed, surely that's the whole point of us having a loyal opposition, in that it is opposition accepting the basic premises of how government is constituted, and therefore that there might be other issues (albeit rare) where bitter opponents would nonetheless agree.
That said, there are few situations where direct working together would likely be a good idea.
Yes but Labour teaming up with the Tories, are you mad
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
She stood on a stage and went on about pork markets
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
Well, let’s ignore any specifics and make it hypothetical, senior politician Mr or Mrs X has sex with junior staff in the workplace. Could be anyone.
You think the dynamic is hugely different depending on whether X is male or female?
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
She was an ambitious young candidate who had an affair with her political mentor. Distasteful, because they were both married, but not a breach of reporting lines or an abuse of power
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
She stood on a stage and went on about pork markets
Yes I was in the audience for that speech - and for a Fringe meeting she was in as well at the same Conference where she gave a far more natural speech. It was awkward, but she was making a serious point. To our exporters these aren't trivial issues.
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
The only criterion the government appears to have given Ofqual was that there shouldn’t be grade inflation. Their model appears to have delivered?
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
She stood on a stage and went on about pork markets
Yes I was in the audience for that speech - and for a Fringe meeting she was in as well at the same Conference where she gave a far more natural speech. It was awkward, but she was making a serious point. To our exporters these aren't trivial issues.
I wonder if you give Dianne Abbott the benefit of the doubt when she says stupid things
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
She had an affair with her mentor, Mark Field. Doesn’t matter a jot.
Some people assert that moral failings like committing adultery would be an indication of poor character and leadership as a decision maker. I think there are too many examples of crap leaders who might be morally unimpeachable, and good leaders who are morally compromises, to think that matters of sexual relationships matter a jot so long as no laws were broken.
I'd put in one step down from Justin's dislike of bastards.
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
Well, let’s ignore any specifics and make it hypothetical, senior politician Mr or Mrs X has sex with junior staff in the workplace. Could be anyone.
You think the dynamic is hugely different depending on whether X is male or female?
No. I think if the two are consenting adults I couldn't care less.
"The US Postal Service has suspended new policies that were decried as an attempt to sabotage the 2020 election.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said on Tuesday he would reverse operations changes that critics say would hamper mail-in voting.........
Mr DeJoy has now said that post office hours would not be cut, and post boxes and sorting machines would stop being removed.
Mr DeJoy, a former Republican donor, also said overtime pay would continue to be approved to ensure deliveries arrive on time.
"To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded," Mr DeJoy said in a statement."
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
Some issues can be above regular politics, and the big two vote on things together from time to time, which is by definition teaming up with one another.
And despite fiercely opposed in most ways parties might still agree on something fundamental. Indeed, surely that's the whole point of us having a loyal opposition, in that it is opposition accepting the basic premises of how government is constituted, and therefore that there might be other issues (albeit rare) where bitter opponents would nonetheless agree.
That said, there are few situations where direct working together would likely be a good idea.
Yes but Labour teaming up with the Tories, are you mad
TBF it does happen now and again, in local government.
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
She stood on a stage and went on about pork markets
Yes I was in the audience for that speech - and for a Fringe meeting she was in as well at the same Conference where she gave a far more natural speech. It was awkward, but she was making a serious point. To our exporters these aren't trivial issues.
I wonder if you give Dianne Abbott the benefit of the doubt when she says stupid things
Also, when did the IFS become a defender of "equality"? I've noticed it more and more that they are pushing the "poor people matter the most" agenda in everything they do. It's a worthwhile goal but their remit isn't to bang on about equality, it's to try and see how the UK is performing economically and what the fiscal outlook is and what kind of multipliers government policy will have. The eat out scheme must have an absolutely massive economic multiplier, it's an extremely cheap scheme at £500m but it will generate huge economic benefits for the hospitality industry and save far more than that within the furlough scheme.
Honestly, it actually doesn't matter if poor people can't afford to eat out, they didn't before the virus and they probably won't afterwards. The sector depends on the middle classes going out and spending money on food, booze and tips. It's quite annoying that their insight was "yeah but poor people" and not what kind of multiplier it would have and how good or bad the scheme would be at getting the sector back on its feet. It's not a big deal for me because I have a team of analysts to do that for me, but our research will never see the light of day, where is the public going to learn this stuff from if the IFS is derelicting it's duty to report on the fiscal outlook.
I give the Eat Out to Help Out two cheers rather than three. There have been some quite unpleasant stories of abuse directed against staff for not having table space for diners and one or two places in coastal towns have opted out of the scheme.
There's also the question of how much the early week business is affecting the later week and weekend business. My experience of a roast lunch on a Saturday was the venue was exceptionally quiet and the staff confirmed the place was rammed Monday-Wednesday and dead the rest of the week.
If the total volume of business is simply being redistributed and isn't increasing, I can't quite see the benefit except to the consumer early in the week obviously. If the total volume of business is up 10% on what would normally happen because of the scheme, that's excellent and to be welcome.
I wonder if the scheme will be prolonged into September but at £500m a month such largesse isn't going to be on the menu forever (pun intended).
In the BBC article the owner of a restaurant chain has said it is having the intended effect of making people more confident in going out and their weekend bookings are also strong -
"The Eat Out to Help Out scheme has really been amazing," said Stephen Wall, managing director and co-founder of restaurant chain Pho. "It's so nice to see our restaurants full of happy staff and customers again.
"It has certainly benefitted our early week figures and seems to have encouraged the British public to dine out safely, as our restaurants are filling up and staying busy throughout the weekend, too."
It is probably the most successful government policy we've seen in absolutely ages. It is definitely having the intended effect of getting people into restaurants and pubs for the first time and showing people that it is safe to go out again. I don't think they will bother keeping it for September because of that reason, there won't be any need for it. If they do then it might only be for an extra couple of weeks while the weather is good and extra outdoor capacity can be put in place.
The restaurants on London Rd in Leicester were packed out, mostly with Asian families, and adjacent to the hotspot area. Thanks, but no thanks...
Dental appointment went well, no major work required on my broken tooth. Continued neglect was the recommendation.
I didn’t realise Leicester was out of lockdown!
It isn't. The restaurants and pubs are open though. The restrictions are pretty meaningless, and not being observed.
If the pubs and bars are open, how is it in lockdown?
In Leicester City, the national easements for 15 August will not apply. That means the following cannot reopen or resume:
casinos skating rinks bowling alleys indoor play areas, including soft play areas exhibition centres and conference halls indoor performances remaining close contact services, which are any treatments on the face such as eyebrow threading or make-up application wedding receptions and celebrations for up to 30 people, in the form of a sit-down meal The following settings must also remain closed in Leicester City:
indoor gyms indoor fitness and dance studios indoor sports courts and facilities indoor swimming pools, including indoor facilities at water parks
Household restrictions People from different households must not meet in a private home or garden. You must not:
host people you do not live with in your home or garden, unless they’re in your support bubble meet people you do not live with in their home or garden travel outside of protected area in Leicester to meet people in their home or garden
Those are no longer current. Nearly everything is now open, pubs, restraints, gyms. People are banned from visiting each others gardens. They have even said we can swm in outdoor public pools. There is a slight hitch in that the last one closed in 1975...
From the govt site last updated 14 Aug. If its not up to date they really cant organise a piss up in a brewery - assuming it were allowed of course.
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
She stood on a stage and went on about pork markets
Yes I was in the audience for that speech - and for a Fringe meeting she was in as well at the same Conference where she gave a far more natural speech. It was awkward, but she was making a serious point. To our exporters these aren't trivial issues.
I wonder if you give Dianne Abbott the benefit of the doubt when she says stupid things
What she said wasn't stupid.
Mocking exporters isn't clever.
Watch the video above and then tell me she's a brainbox
Also, when did the IFS become a defender of "equality"? I've noticed it more and more that they are pushing the "poor people matter the most" agenda in everything they do. It's a worthwhile goal but their remit isn't to bang on about equality, it's to try and see how the UK is performing economically and what the fiscal outlook is and what kind of multipliers government policy will have. The eat out scheme must have an absolutely massive economic multiplier, it's an extremely cheap scheme at £500m but it will generate huge economic benefits for the hospitality industry and save far more than that within the furlough scheme.
Honestly, it actually doesn't matter if poor people can't afford to eat out, they didn't before the virus and they probably won't afterwards. The sector depends on the middle classes going out and spending money on food, booze and tips. It's quite annoying that their insight was "yeah but poor people" and not what kind of multiplier it would have and how good or bad the scheme would be at getting the sector back on its feet. It's not a big deal for me because I have a team of analysts to do that for me, but our research will never see the light of day, where is the public going to learn this stuff from if the IFS is derelicting it's duty to report on the fiscal outlook.
I give the Eat Out to Help Out two cheers rather than three. There have been some quite unpleasant stories of abuse directed against staff for not having table space for diners and one or two places in coastal towns have opted out of the scheme.
There's also the question of how much the early week business is affecting the later week and weekend business. My experience of a roast lunch on a Saturday was the venue was exceptionally quiet and the staff confirmed the place was rammed Monday-Wednesday and dead the rest of the week.
If the total volume of business is simply being redistributed and isn't increasing, I can't quite see the benefit except to the consumer early in the week obviously. If the total volume of business is up 10% on what would normally happen because of the scheme, that's excellent and to be welcome.
I wonder if the scheme will be prolonged into September but at £500m a month such largesse isn't going to be on the menu forever (pun intended).
In the BBC article the owner of a restaurant chain has said it is having the intended effect of making people more confident in going out and their weekend bookings are also strong -
"The Eat Out to Help Out scheme has really been amazing," said Stephen Wall, managing director and co-founder of restaurant chain Pho. "It's so nice to see our restaurants full of happy staff and customers again.
"It has certainly benefitted our early week figures and seems to have encouraged the British public to dine out safely, as our restaurants are filling up and staying busy throughout the weekend, too."
It is probably the most successful government policy we've seen in absolutely ages. It is definitely having the intended effect of getting people into restaurants and pubs for the first time and showing people that it is safe to go out again. I don't think they will bother keeping it for September because of that reason, there won't be any need for it. If they do then it might only be for an extra couple of weeks while the weather is good and extra outdoor capacity can be put in place.
The restaurants on London Rd in Leicester were packed out, mostly with Asian families, and adjacent to the hotspot area. Thanks, but no thanks...
Dental appointment went well, no major work required on my broken tooth. Continued neglect was the recommendation.
I didn’t realise Leicester was out of lockdown!
It isn't. The restaurants and pubs are open though. The restrictions are pretty meaningless, and not being observed.
If the pubs and bars are open, how is it in lockdown?
In Leicester City, the national easements for 15 August will not apply. That means the following cannot reopen or resume:
casinos skating rinks bowling alleys indoor play areas, including soft play areas exhibition centres and conference halls indoor performances remaining close contact services, which are any treatments on the face such as eyebrow threading or make-up application wedding receptions and celebrations for up to 30 people, in the form of a sit-down meal The following settings must also remain closed in Leicester City:
indoor gyms indoor fitness and dance studios indoor sports courts and facilities indoor swimming pools, including indoor facilities at water parks
Household restrictions People from different households must not meet in a private home or garden. You must not:
host people you do not live with in your home or garden, unless they’re in your support bubble meet people you do not live with in their home or garden travel outside of protected area in Leicester to meet people in their home or garden
Those are no longer current. Nearly everything is now open, pubs, restraints, gyms. People are banned from visiting each others gardens. They have even said we can swm in outdoor public pools. There is a slight hitch in that the last one closed in 1975...
"The US Postal Service has suspended new policies that were decried as an attempt to sabotage the 2020 election.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said on Tuesday he would reverse operations changes that critics say would hamper mail-in voting.........
Mr DeJoy has now said that post office hours would not be cut, and post boxes and sorting machines would stop being removed.
Mr DeJoy, a former Republican donor, also said overtime pay would continue to be approved to ensure deliveries arrive on time.
"To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded," Mr DeJoy said in a statement."
Some issues can be above regular politics, and the big two vote on things together from time to time, which is by definition teaming up with one another.
And despite fiercely opposed in most ways parties might still agree on something fundamental. Indeed, surely that's the whole point of us having a loyal opposition, in that it is opposition accepting the basic premises of how government is constituted, and therefore that there might be other issues (albeit rare) where bitter opponents would nonetheless agree.
That said, there are few situations where direct working together would likely be a good idea.
Yes but Labour teaming up with the Tories, are you mad
I think there's nothing inherently wrong about it in principle, but that the actual practical examples of when it would work are vanishingly small.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
She had an affair with her mentor, Mark Field. Doesn’t matter a jot.
It's the in her office bit that I'm questioning. Also, was this guy a govt employee under her supervision (pun semi-intended?
Both would be grounds for censure if not worse.
Though of course the FO cleaning staff likely found periods when Lord Palmerston was Foreign Sec VERY challenging!
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
The only criterion the government appears to have given Ofqual was that there shouldn’t be grade inflation. Their model appears to have delivered?
Perhaps they assumed - wrongly as it turned out - that Ofqual's mission statement meant something:
We’re responsible for making sure that:
- regulated qualifications reliably indicate the knowledge, skills and understanding students have demonstrated - assessments and exams show what a student has achieved - people have confidence in the qualifications that we regulate
Easy mistake to make, of course. I mean, who could reasonably expect that an organisation dedicated to ensuring that 'assessments and exams show what a student has achieved' might think it a good idea to ensure that assessments and exams show what a student has achieved?
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
I think it's a fair point, and I'm actually slightly wary of entirely independent regulators for just that reason despite the benefits.
That said, Williamson just seems inherently unlikable, and most definitely lacking in competence, so it is hard to muster sympathy.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
Truss is quite hot. In a Milfy way. You would.
Sean, I really don't want to know what goes on inside your head
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
Sorry but Im going for the have my cake and eat it approach here.
In normal times, yes ministers should stay out of independent regulators way on current decisions, fine for them to change how they operate for the future.
In exceptional times, such as a pandemic or a war, the framework the regulators are required to work in may not fit the scenario, so the ministers would need to intervene and shouldnt be restricted from doing so.
To navigate that requires just some basic judgment so is beyond the current cabinet.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
I can understand your enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland. I cannot understand your defence of Eck. On the scale of odious politicians he is right up there with Johnson and Corbyn.
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
Sorry but Im going for the have my cake and eat it approach here.
In normal times, yes ministers should stay out of independent regulators way on current decisions, fine for them to change how they operate for the future.
In exceptional times, such as a pandemic or a war, the framework the regulators are required to work in may not fit the scenario, so the ministers would need to intervene and shouldnt be restricted from doing so.
To navigate that requires just some basic judgment so is beyond the current cabinet.
I don't disagree. This has been an absolute disaster, which Gavin Williamson, Boris, and and whole government should have seen a mile off. Nonetheless, the primary incompetence - as opposed to the political naivety - was Ofqual's.
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
She stood on a stage and went on about pork markets
Yes I was in the audience for that speech - and for a Fringe meeting she was in as well at the same Conference where she gave a far more natural speech. It was awkward, but she was making a serious point. To our exporters these aren't trivial issues.
I wonder if you give Dianne Abbott the benefit of the doubt when she says stupid things
What she said wasn't stupid.
Mocking exporters isn't clever.
Watch the video above and then tell me she's a brainbox
A badly edited montage of clips to make her look silly?
I was in the audience for that speech live - and saw her in person at a fringe event. I gained a lot of respect for her then. She is very, very switched on.
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
She stood on a stage and went on about pork markets
Yes I was in the audience for that speech - and for a Fringe meeting she was in as well at the same Conference where she gave a far more natural speech. It was awkward, but she was making a serious point. To our exporters these aren't trivial issues.
I wonder if you give Dianne Abbott the benefit of the doubt when she says stupid things
What she said wasn't stupid.
Mocking exporters isn't clever.
Watch the video above and then tell me she's a brainbox
A badly edited montage of clips to make her look silly?
I was in the audience for that speech live - and saw her in person at a fringe event. I gained a lot of respect for her then. She is very, very switched on.
PORK. MARKETS.
THAT. IS. AN. ABSOLUTE. DISGRACE.
[Forgets to put on angry face, suddenly puts on angry face]
And what was that weird looking around the stage at the beginning of her speech?
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
Also, when did the IFS become a defender of "equality"? I've noticed it more and more that they are pushing the "poor people matter the most" agenda in everything they do. It's a worthwhile goal but their remit isn't to bang on about equality, it's to try and see how the UK is performing economically and what the fiscal outlook is and what kind of multipliers government policy will have. The eat out scheme must have an absolutely massive economic multiplier, it's an extremely cheap scheme at £500m but it will generate huge economic benefits for the hospitality industry and save far more than that within the furlough scheme.
Honestly, it actually doesn't matter if poor people can't afford to eat out, they didn't before the virus and they probably won't afterwards. The sector depends on the middle classes going out and spending money on food, booze and tips. It's quite annoying that their insight was "yeah but poor people" and not what kind of multiplier it would have and how good or bad the scheme would be at getting the sector back on its feet. It's not a big deal for me because I have a team of analysts to do that for me, but our research will never see the light of day, where is the public going to learn this stuff from if the IFS is derelicting it's duty to report on the fiscal outlook.
I give the Eat Out to Help Out two cheers rather than three. There have been some quite unpleasant stories of abuse directed against staff for not having table space for diners and one or two places in coastal towns have opted out of the scheme.
There's also the question of how much the early week business is affecting the later week and weekend business. My experience of a roast lunch on a Saturday was the venue was exceptionally quiet and the staff confirmed the place was rammed Monday-Wednesday and dead the rest of the week.
If the total volume of business is simply being redistributed and isn't increasing, I can't quite see the benefit except to the consumer early in the week obviously. If the total volume of business is up 10% on what would normally happen because of the scheme, that's excellent and to be welcome.
I wonder if the scheme will be prolonged into September but at £500m a month such largesse isn't going to be on the menu forever (pun intended).
In the BBC article the owner of a restaurant chain has said it is having the intended effect of making people more confident in going out and their weekend bookings are also strong -
"The Eat Out to Help Out scheme has really been amazing," said Stephen Wall, managing director and co-founder of restaurant chain Pho. "It's so nice to see our restaurants full of happy staff and customers again.
"It has certainly benefitted our early week figures and seems to have encouraged the British public to dine out safely, as our restaurants are filling up and staying busy throughout the weekend, too."
It is probably the most successful government policy we've seen in absolutely ages. It is definitely having the intended effect of getting people into restaurants and pubs for the first time and showing people that it is safe to go out again. I don't think they will bother keeping it for September because of that reason, there won't be any need for it. If they do then it might only be for an extra couple of weeks while the weather is good and extra outdoor capacity can be put in place.
The restaurants on London Rd in Leicester were packed out, mostly with Asian families, and adjacent to the hotspot area. Thanks, but no thanks...
Dental appointment went well, no major work required on my broken tooth. Continued neglect was the recommendation.
I didn’t realise Leicester was out of lockdown!
It isn't. The restaurants and pubs are open though. The restrictions are pretty meaningless, and not being observed.
If the pubs and bars are open, how is it in lockdown?
In Leicester City, the national easements for 15 August will not apply. That means the following cannot reopen or resume:
casinos skating rinks bowling alleys indoor play areas, including soft play areas exhibition centres and conference halls indoor performances remaining close contact services, which are any treatments on the face such as eyebrow threading or make-up application wedding receptions and celebrations for up to 30 people, in the form of a sit-down meal The following settings must also remain closed in Leicester City:
indoor gyms indoor fitness and dance studios indoor sports courts and facilities indoor swimming pools, including indoor facilities at water parks
Household restrictions People from different households must not meet in a private home or garden. You must not:
host people you do not live with in your home or garden, unless they’re in your support bubble meet people you do not live with in their home or garden travel outside of protected area in Leicester to meet people in their home or garden
Those are no longer current. Nearly everything is now open, pubs, restraints, gyms. People are banned from visiting each others gardens. They have even said we can swm in outdoor public pools. There is a slight hitch in that the last one closed in 1975...
From the govt site last updated 14 Aug. If its not up to date they really cant organise a piss up in a brewery - assuming it were allowed of course.
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
Sorry but Im going for the have my cake and eat it approach here.
In normal times, yes ministers should stay out of independent regulators way on current decisions, fine for them to change how they operate for the future.
In exceptional times, such as a pandemic or a war, the framework the regulators are required to work in may not fit the scenario, so the ministers would need to intervene and shouldnt be restricted from doing so.
To navigate that requires just some basic judgment so is beyond the current cabinet.
I don't disagree. This has been an absolute disaster, which Gavin Williamson, Boris, and and whole government should have seen a mile off. Nonetheless, the primary incompetence - as opposed to the political naivety - was Ofqual's.
What happens when it turns out OFQUAL's algorithm yields closer overall results to next year's results than the CAGs ?
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
I note that I gave a detailed reason as to why I respect Truss and not a single person came up with a political reason why we shouldn't - just a prudish assertion that she has had sex.
She stood on a stage and went on about pork markets
Yes I was in the audience for that speech - and for a Fringe meeting she was in as well at the same Conference where she gave a far more natural speech. It was awkward, but she was making a serious point. To our exporters these aren't trivial issues.
I wonder if you give Dianne Abbott the benefit of the doubt when she says stupid things
What she said wasn't stupid.
Mocking exporters isn't clever.
Watch the video above and then tell me she's a brainbox
A badly edited montage of clips to make her look silly?
I was in the audience for that speech live - and saw her in person at a fringe event. I gained a lot of respect for her then. She is very, very switched on.
PORK. MARKETS.
THAT. IS. AN. ABSOLUTE. DISGRACE.
[Forgets to put on angry face, suddenly puts on angry face]
And what was that weird looking around the stage at the beginning of her speech?
It was her first Conference speech, her first year in Cabinet. Its a very unnatural environment.
But there's a reason why through three different Prime Ministers she has been ever-present in Cabinet since - and there's a reason why people wanting to embarrass her talk about a six year old speech and not any of the ones she's given since.
If she was truly embarrassing or stupid you'd have other things to talk about.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
I agree entirely but do notice that you have used the word popularised by American films to avoid shocking the world with what would actually be said in real life.
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
The only criterion the government appears to have given Ofqual was that there shouldn’t be grade inflation. Their model appears to have delivered?
Perhaps they assumed - wrongly as it turned out - that Ofqual's mission statement meant something:
We’re responsible for making sure that:
- regulated qualifications reliably indicate the knowledge, skills and understanding students have demonstrated - assessments and exams show what a student has achieved - people have confidence in the qualifications that we regulate
Easy mistake to make, of course. I mean, who could reasonably expect that an organisation dedicated to ensuring that 'assessments and exams show what a student has achieved' might think it a good idea to ensure that assessments and exams show what a student has achieved?
Trouble is that, without a single national thing that everyone does under the same conditions (i.e. an exam) you can't ensure that candidates get a fair reflection of their achievement as individuals as well as ensuring that national standards are maintained.
Plan A- the Ofqual model- kept the national data right, at the expense of crazy outputs at an individual level.
What we have now- school/college best guesses- probably gets more individual results more right, but with an overall inflationary bias. (My guess is that most schools played this with a straight bat, but even that will have inflated things a fair bit, as discussed here. Plus some schools and teachers probably did take the mickey.)
So- what was Ofqual told to do? Hold the national totals, no matter what? Do what they thought was best in the circumstances? That question will point a lot to where the culpability lays.
But of course, Williamson should have gone by now.
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
Sorry but Im going for the have my cake and eat it approach here.
In normal times, yes ministers should stay out of independent regulators way on current decisions, fine for them to change how they operate for the future.
In exceptional times, such as a pandemic or a war, the framework the regulators are required to work in may not fit the scenario, so the ministers would need to intervene and shouldnt be restricted from doing so.
To navigate that requires just some basic judgment so is beyond the current cabinet.
I don't disagree. This has been an absolute disaster, which Gavin Williamson, Boris, and and whole government should have seen a mile off. Nonetheless, the primary incompetence - as opposed to the political naivety - was Ofqual's.
At least Scottish politicians were quick to see the danger of proceeding down the path set out for them.
By digging in deeper and deeper, the UK government has put many English students through two weeks of grief and still risks leaving many of them without the university places to which they are now entitled.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
What happens when it turns out OFQUAL's algorithm yields closer overall results to next year's results than the CAGs ?
It will be old news. The thing is that on average the Ofqual algorithm probably is quite good. I would have been equally good on average, or even better, if they'd ignored teachers' predicted grades completely and simply assigned last year's grades for a given school randomly to this year's cohort. That wouldn't make it a good idea!
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
Labour is not going to team up with the Tories, you're batshit crazy.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
She had an affair with her mentor, Mark Field. Doesn’t matter a jot.
I did tell y'all in 2016 that Gavin Williamson is spectacularly useless. Even so, not for the first time I find myself having to defend a politician being universally vilified. The principal blame for the current mess isn't actually his, it is Ofqual's.
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
Sorry but Im going for the have my cake and eat it approach here.
In normal times, yes ministers should stay out of independent regulators way on current decisions, fine for them to change how they operate for the future.
In exceptional times, such as a pandemic or a war, the framework the regulators are required to work in may not fit the scenario, so the ministers would need to intervene and shouldnt be restricted from doing so.
To navigate that requires just some basic judgment so is beyond the current cabinet.
I don't disagree. This has been an absolute disaster, which Gavin Williamson, Boris, and and whole government should have seen a mile off. Nonetheless, the primary incompetence - as opposed to the political naivety - was Ofqual's.
Yes the decision makers in Ofqual should be awarded one of their own Us.
Throughout the crisis people have stuck too closely to how life was before the pandemic. Organisations have been very slow to think about what needs to be achieved this month, this year and how they need to adapt, often significantly, to do that.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
This is cultural chasm. Most Brits can't see why it is an affront. Most Americans can't see it as anything but. One small example of how European we actually are.
At least Scottish politicians were quick to see the danger of proceeding down the path set out for them.
By digging in deeper and deeper, the UK government has put many English students through two weeks of grief and still risks leaving many of them without the university places to which they are now entitled.
I tweeted on that point a week ago, in response to John Rentoul correctly pointing out that Gavin Williamson was going to have to make the same U-turn:
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
The comment that raised the sex topic said they'd had sex in an office; so if that is NOT the case, then obviously my objections on that point are moot.
As for the underling issue, IF they were both MPs, that is neither was a civil servant or similar, then ditto re: that objection.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
The comment that raised the sex topic said they'd had sex in an office; so if that is NOT the case, then obviously my objections on that point are moot.
As for the underling issue, IF they were both MPs, that is neither was a civil servant or similar, then ditto re: that objection.
Charles has said what the actual story was. It was before she was even an MP and she was the junior.
So long as people are consenting adults there's no reason to bring sex up.
At least Scottish politicians were quick to see the danger of proceeding down the path set out for them.
By digging in deeper and deeper, the UK government has put many English students through two weeks of grief and still risks leaving many of them without the university places to which they are now entitled.
I tweeted on that point a week ago, in response to John Rentoul correctly pointing out that Gavin Williamson was going to have to make the same U-turn:
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
This is cultural chasm. Most Brits can't see why it is an affront. Most Americans can't see it as anything but. One small example of how European we actually are.
Watching American shows like Grey's Anatomy it seems Americans do nothing but have sex at work.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
The comment that raised the sex topic said they'd had sex in an office; so if that is NOT the case, then obviously my objections on that point are moot.
As for the underling issue, IF they were both MPs, that is neither was a civil servant or similar, then ditto re: that objection.
Charles has said what the actual story was. It was before she was even an MP and she was the junior.
So long as people are consenting adults there's no reason to bring sex up.
BUT did it occur in a government office? AND she WAS under his supervision?
Instead of claiming that all facts are already stated, why not just answer these simple questions from a simple(ton) American?
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
Labour is not going to team up with the Tories, you're batshit crazy.
Woo, woo, HYUFD's trying to put the frighteners on you, while failing to conceal his horniness at the thought of a a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between.
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
You have made some irrational, sweeping statements tonight, but on this point you are absolutely right.
My hope is that by the time Johnson has finished being World King, the Tory brand will have been trashed to the point where I shall see my days out with non-Conservative governments. The tipping point hasn't happened yet, but it will.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
The comment that raised the sex topic said they'd had sex in an office; so if that is NOT the case, then obviously my objections on that point are moot.
As for the underling issue, IF they were both MPs, that is neither was a civil servant or similar, then ditto re: that objection.
Charles has said what the actual story was. It was before she was even an MP and she was the junior.
So long as people are consenting adults there's no reason to bring sex up.
BUT did it occur in a government office? AND she WAS under his supervision?
Instead of claiming that all facts are already stated, why not just answer these simple questions from a simple(ton) American?
No, not in a government office. And I don't know the details about supervision or not, its none of our business. It was when the Tories were still in opposition, five years before she was even a candidate to become an MP.
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
Labour is not going to team up with the Tories, you're batshit crazy.
Woo, woo, HYUFD's trying to put the frighteners on you, while failing to conceal his horniness at the thought of a a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between.
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
You have made some irrational, sweeping statements tonight, but on this point you are absolutely right.
My hope is that by the time Johnson has finished being World King, the Tory brand will have been trashed to the point where I shall see my days out with non-Conservative governments. The tipping point hasn't happened yet, but it will.
Out of the 21 general elections since WW2 Labour has only won a majority in them 5 times in England, 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 ie 3/5 of them under Blair.
Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 also won Tory majorities in England alone.
If Scotland goes say bye bye to there ever being a Labour government again for any significant length of time unless under a Blairite.
Those are the stakes for Labour, Boris for example currently has a Tory majority of over 150 in England alone
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
You have made some irrational, sweeping statements tonight, but on this point you are absolutely right.
My hope is that by the time Johnson has finished being World King, the Tory brand will have been trashed to the point where I shall see my days out with non-Conservative governments. The tipping point hasn't happened yet, but it will.
Nope, out of the 21 general elections since WW2 Labour has only won a majority in them 5 times in England, 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 ie 3/5 of them under Blair.
If Scotland goes say bye bye to there ever being a Labour government again for any significant length of time unless under a Blairite.
Those are the stakes for Labour, Boris for example currently has a Tory majority of over 150 in England alone
HYUFD is the greatest poster of all time and I hope you reach 100,000 first
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
You have made some irrational, sweeping statements tonight, but on this point you are absolutely right.
My hope is that by the time Johnson has finished being World King, the Tory brand will have been trashed to the point where I shall see my days out with non-Conservative governments. The tipping point hasn't happened yet, but it will.
Nope, out of the 21 general elections since WW2 Labpur has only won a majority in them 5 teams in England, 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 ie 3 of them under Blair.
If Scotland goes say bye bye to there ever being a Labour government again for any significant length of time unless under a Blairite.
Those are the stakes for Labour, Boris for example currently has a Tory majority of over 150 in England alone
I agreed with your general assertion.
My expectation however is by, hopefully 2024, but if not by 2028, Johnson's utter incompetence will catch up with him and the Conservative Party.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
This is cultural chasm. Most Brits can't see why it is an affront. Most Americans can't see it as anything but. One small example of how European we actually are.
Watching American shows like Grey's Anatomy it seems Americans do nothing but have sex at work.
Which is why the backlash in Middle America against "Hollywood values." It is noticeably against the sex, seldom the brutal and unnecessary resort to violence as the first solution to any problem.
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
The comment that raised the sex topic said they'd had sex in an office; so if that is NOT the case, then obviously my objections on that point are moot.
As for the underling issue, IF they were both MPs, that is neither was a civil servant or similar, then ditto re: that objection.
Charles has said what the actual story was. It was before she was even an MP and she was the junior.
So long as people are consenting adults there's no reason to bring sex up.
BUT did it occur in a government office? AND she WAS under his supervision?
Instead of claiming that all facts are already stated, why not just answer these simple questions from a simple(ton) American?
No, not in a government office. And I don't know the details about supervision or not, its none of our business. It was when the Tories were still in opposition, five years before she was even a candidate to become an MP.
I think mine was potentially a separate, more recent story. But as it arises from something I saw on Guido, I should make clear that it is entirely groundless and simply unfounded and surely false, and I place no store in it whatsoever.
Do not assume a Nationalist majority is inevitable.
I think it increasingly likely all Unionist parties will combine under 1 Unionist Alliance ticket led by Ruth Davidson, just standing one Unionist candidate at constituency level at Holyrood against the SNP, with the Unionist parties only standing separately against each other as Tories, Labour and LD on the Holyrood list.
Thus maximising the number of Unionist MSPs to stop a Nationalist SNP or SNP and Green majority
I really cannot see Labour agreeing to that. It would play into the hands of the SNP by effectively repeating the 2014 mistake of combining in the Better Together campaign.
The same Better Together campaign that won the 2014 referendum by a comfortable 55% to 45% margin?
BUT point is, Labour took a political hit for the cause of preserving the union.
Is YOUR party ready and willing (to say nothing of able) to do the same, for a cause (allegedly) so central to its own existence?
Of course, political parties exist to do good (as they see it) AND also to maintain their existence. SO can forgive Labour, CUP, LDs AND SNP (and even Cornish Nats) for neither forgetting nor foregoing the 2nd imperative.
It is fairly simple, the Tories stand down and allow Labour a free run in the central belt seats next year, Labour stand down and give the Tories a free run in the Borders and rural Aberdeenshire and both stand down and give the LDs a free run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West.
They can still stand against each other on the list anyway
The Labour Party giving the Tories a free run.
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
Technically not correct, they would all stand as Unionist Alliance at the constituency level they would only stand as Tories, Labour or LD on the list where they would still compete against each other
I am crying
You will be if Scotland goes and England is left as almost a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between
Labour is not going to team up with the Tories, you're batshit crazy.
Woo, woo, HYUFD's trying to put the frighteners on you, while failing to conceal his horniness at the thought of a a One Party Tory state with just the occasional Blairite in between.
No thanks I've just washed my hands
Good to see you are following Boris Hands - Face - Space!
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
The comment that raised the sex topic said they'd had sex in an office; so if that is NOT the case, then obviously my objections on that point are moot.
As for the underling issue, IF they were both MPs, that is neither was a civil servant or similar, then ditto re: that objection.
Charles has said what the actual story was. It was before she was even an MP and she was the junior.
So long as people are consenting adults there's no reason to bring sex up.
BUT did it occur in a government office? AND she WAS under his supervision?
Instead of claiming that all facts are already stated, why not just answer these simple questions from a simple(ton) American?
No, not in a government office. And I don't know the details about supervision or not, its none of our business. It was when the Tories were still in opposition, five years before she was even a candidate to become an MP.
Disagree that IF he was her supervisor and she was government servant that is "none of our business". AND fact that it was when Tories were NOT in power and when she was NOT a candidate or MP also do NOT matter - except the fact that you've drug in these red herrings makes you whole argument LESS persuasive.
BUT that's just the unsophisticated opinion of a prudish colonial (or visa versa).
Though would advise PBers the next time you visit your MPs office (constituency or Westminster) to sit on a folded newspaper just to be safe.
I'm flying out to Greece on Friday. Looks like there's a chance the rising case rate in Greece might make the govt put Greece on the quarantine list (maybe not this week, but more probably next week).
If HMG pulls down the shutters next week when I am sunning myself by the Aegean what is to stop me, when I want to return, simply crossing a border - to Bulgaria or Turkey, and flying back from there, where there is, as yet, no need to self isolate on return?
You can. But you'll be asked to declare any countries you've been in in the previous 14 days - so you can commit a criminal offence and lie, or tell the truth and have wasted your trip to Turkey
Williamson is the most useless Cabinet Minister in the history of the known cosmos. He has no ideas, no brains, no charisma, he can't talk, he can barely use a spoon. Why not just sacrifice him? Chuck him to the wolves, and keep them quiet?
Then, more importantly, they can actually appoint someone with a brain, or at least a rudimentary nervous system.
In advisors, Boris wants brains, because they have to do as they are told.
In politicians, Boris fears people with genuine ability. Quite why is left as an exercise for the reader.
He's got many in his Cabinet with genuine ability: Sunak, Patel, Truss etc
For politicians he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly. People who wish to conspire and work against him, he has no time for. After what happened under May its rather refreshing - and for people like Hunt who want to do their own thing they can be critics on the outside rather than unreliable on the inside.
Patel? Truss?
My god, that is desperate stuff.
Both very good.
Truss is one of the most underrated Cabinet Ministers of the last decade. She doesn't get a lot of attention but I have a lot of respect for her.
At least we are now down to Sunak and Truss.
I am guessing you like cheese?
Sunak’s test will come when he starts trying to pay off his bills.
I do like cheese. And pork.
She gets laughed at, but she is very good.
Wasn’t she caught having sex with one of her advisors in her office?
I don't know and couldn't care less. People have sex, don't be a prude.
So you have zero problem with elected official bonking their underlings in their office? AND think that anyone who DOES have a problem with that is a prude?
Yes, yes.
So long as they're both consenting adults.
Interesting.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
Americans are prudes. Can have any amount of guns, violence, death and destruction but someone flashes a tit or has sex and suddenly its the end of the frigging world.
So is a business office - in particular a government office - an appropriate venue for sex? IF objecting to THAT is prudishness, so be it.
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
Is an office an appropriate place to have sex? Well its worth remembering that she didn't do that but having said that - I know plenty of people who have done that. I've not but honestly I couldn't care less about those that do.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
The comment that raised the sex topic said they'd had sex in an office; so if that is NOT the case, then obviously my objections on that point are moot.
As for the underling issue, IF they were both MPs, that is neither was a civil servant or similar, then ditto re: that objection.
Charles has said what the actual story was. It was before she was even an MP and she was the junior.
So long as people are consenting adults there's no reason to bring sex up.
BUT did it occur in a government office? AND she WAS under his supervision?
Instead of claiming that all facts are already stated, why not just answer these simple questions from a simple(ton) American?
No, not in a government office. And I don't know the details about supervision or not, its none of our business. It was when the Tories were still in opposition, five years before she was even a candidate to become an MP.
Disagree that IF he was her supervisor and she was government servant that is "none of our business". AND fact that it was when Tories were NOT in power and when she was NOT a candidate or MP also do NOT matter - except the fact that you've drug in these red herrings makes you whole argument LESS persuasive.
BUT that's just the unsophisticated opinion of a prudish colonial (or visa versa).
Though would advise PBers the next time you visit your MPs office (constituency or Westminster) to sit on a folded newspaper just to be safe.
I think there might be more important things to concern ourselves with than that a young woman had sex sixteen years ago.
Comments
Plot thickens as we start to see the evidence come out in the Salmond stitch up enquiry
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/08/made-in-the-first-ministers-office/
Critics can't have it both ways: do they want independent regulators to be independent, or not? If they do, then the blame lies 100% with Ofqual, and ministers should not have intervened. If they don't, then they should stop bitching about ministers interfering for political reasons in the decisions of the independent bodies. Which is it - and which independent regulators does it apply to?
A Unionist Alliance is also the only way to prevent a Nationalist majority at Holyrood next year.
That is just fact, not losing credibility
Just think about that for a moment.
We won't even stand aside for the Greens in local elections.
About a year ago here in WA State, a Democratic state senator from a VERY progressive, Democratic district (San Juan Islands, Anacortes & half of Bellingham including campus of Western WA U) was alleged to have sexually harassed a woman who he hired for his legislative office. Previously they'd had a affair while he was San Juan Co commissioner and she worked for the county.
According to her, on a number of occasions they had sex in his county office AND in the county commission chamber.
Now San Juan Is. are known as a very socially-liberal place, where hot tubs are commonplace AND frequently filled by frolicking couples, triples, etc., etc. (At least by repute.)
May surprise you to learn, than when progressive denizens of SJC hear about THIS bit of frolicking, their reaction was to 1) demand the senator's immediate resignation; and 2) to fumigate his former office AND council chamber.
You think the dynamic is hugely different depending on whether X is male or female?
The Tories and Labour. Labour wouldn't even stand aside for the Greens!
She was an ambitious young candidate who had an affair with her political mentor. Distasteful, because they were both married, but not a breach of reporting lines or an abuse of power
Whomp whomp
I'd put in one step down from Justin's dislike of bastards.
And she was the junior in the relationship too.
"The US Postal Service has suspended new policies that were decried as an attempt to sabotage the 2020 election.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said on Tuesday he would reverse operations changes that critics say would hamper mail-in voting.........
Mr DeJoy has now said that post office hours would not be cut, and post boxes and sorting machines would stop being removed.
Mr DeJoy, a former Republican donor, also said overtime pay would continue to be approved to ensure deliveries arrive on time.
"To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded," Mr DeJoy said in a statement."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-53829347
Mocking exporters isn't clever.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/leicester-lockdown-what-you-can-and-cannot-do
So now we know what sort of club you visit!
Both would be grounds for censure if not worse.
Though of course the FO cleaning staff likely found periods when Lord Palmerston was Foreign Sec VERY challenging!
We’re responsible for making sure that:
- regulated qualifications reliably indicate the knowledge, skills and understanding students have demonstrated
- assessments and exams show what a student has achieved
- people have confidence in the qualifications that we regulate
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofqual/about
Easy mistake to make, of course. I mean, who could reasonably expect that an organisation dedicated to ensuring that 'assessments and exams show what a student has achieved' might think it a good idea to ensure that assessments and exams show what a student has achieved?
That said, Williamson just seems inherently unlikable, and most definitely lacking in competence, so it is hard to muster sympathy.
In normal times, yes ministers should stay out of independent regulators way on current decisions, fine for them to change how they operate for the future.
In exceptional times, such as a pandemic or a war, the framework the regulators are required to work in may not fit the scenario, so the ministers would need to intervene and shouldnt be restricted from doing so.
To navigate that requires just some basic judgment so is beyond the current cabinet.
I was in the audience for that speech live - and saw her in person at a fringe event. I gained a lot of respect for her then. She is very, very switched on.
THAT. IS. AN. ABSOLUTE. DISGRACE.
[Forgets to put on angry face, suddenly puts on angry face]
And what was that weird looking around the stage at the beginning of her speech?
This was London rd yesterday, and looking much the same tonight. Not lockdown in any meaningful sense;
Please note I am one Democrat who believed at the time - and still do - that Bill Clinton's conduct w Monica Lewinsky - in particular getting blow jobs in the Oval Office - was an utter disgrace. AND that he should have done the right thing, and resigned.
Which IMHO would have spared US (and world) the Cheney-Bush administration.
Not to mention some of the wretched sewage backup likely when more details of Bill Clinton ties with Epstein & La Maxwell emerge.
Talk about abuse of office!
But there's a reason why through three different Prime Ministers she has been ever-present in Cabinet since - and there's a reason why people wanting to embarrass her talk about a six year old speech and not any of the ones she's given since.
If she was truly embarrassing or stupid you'd have other things to talk about.
Plan A- the Ofqual model- kept the national data right, at the expense of crazy outputs at an individual level.
What we have now- school/college best guesses- probably gets more individual results more right, but with an overall inflationary bias. (My guess is that most schools played this with a straight bat, but even that will have inflated things a fair bit, as discussed here. Plus some schools and teachers probably did take the mickey.)
So- what was Ofqual told to do? Hold the national totals, no matter what? Do what they thought was best in the circumstances? That question will point a lot to where the culpability lays.
But of course, Williamson should have gone by now.
By digging in deeper and deeper, the UK government has put many English students through two weeks of grief and still risks leaving many of them without the university places to which they are now entitled.
I couldn't care less about Clinton either.
Epstein is a different matter as that involved non-consenting juveniles, somewhat different to consenting adults.
Throughout the crisis people have stuck too closely to how life was before the pandemic. Organisations have been very slow to think about what needs to be achieved this month, this year and how they need to adapt, often significantly, to do that.
One small example of how European we actually are.
https://twitter.com/RichardNabavi/status/1293192644680495107
As for the underling issue, IF they were both MPs, that is neither was a civil servant or similar, then ditto re: that objection.
So long as people are consenting adults there's no reason to bring sex up.
Instead of claiming that all facts are already stated, why not just answer these simple questions from a simple(ton) American?
My hope is that by the time Johnson has finished being World King, the Tory brand will have been trashed to the point where I shall see my days out with non-Conservative governments. The tipping point hasn't happened yet, but it will.
Can he still do it??
Ask the ordinary USA worker!
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/david-cameron-warns-turnip-taliban-they-could-damage-whole-party-6747513.html
Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 also won Tory majorities in England alone.
If Scotland goes say bye bye to there ever being a Labour government again for any significant length of time unless under a Blairite.
Those are the stakes for Labour, Boris for example currently has a Tory majority of over 150 in England alone
Will they be upset when its still CON overall maj 2042?
My expectation however is by, hopefully 2024, but if not by 2028, Johnson's utter incompetence will catch up with him and the Conservative Party.
It is noticeably against the sex, seldom the brutal and unnecessary resort to violence as the first solution to any problem.
BUT that's just the unsophisticated opinion of a prudish colonial (or visa versa).
Though would advise PBers the next time you visit your MPs office (constituency or Westminster) to sit on a folded newspaper just to be safe.
I am not hard left though, just a bog standard social democrat
Its a shame it was May not Truss that was elected.
However, we're now just 76 days from the US election, and Sleepy Joe is almost nine points clear on the 538 poll of polls.
Every day the task becomes a tiny bit harder for the President.