You won't hear someone who has worked in Parliament say this very often but I miss Bercow as Speaker. His willingness to ignore convention made Parliament (for good or ill) powerful during Brexit in a way that stands in stark contrast to how supine it's been over COVID.
Hoyle has his tantrums against the government but ultimately he's not willing to break any rules that might really piss them off. His fatal flaw is that he wants to be liked by his colleagues. He's a bit Michael Martin like in my opinion, although perhaps more intelligent.
Bercow really hated clerks because they told him that he couldn't do things because of precedent (that is largely their job) and his behaviour could be inexcusable. On the other hand he was wonderful with the other staff such as the security guards, guides, caterers. Always really helpful for things like organising school visits and he opened up Speaker's House to any staff grade for monthly lectures by other politicians.
Parliament was "powerful" during Brexit because the Government had no majority. And no majority for no course of action. And ultimately what did it achieve with this "power"? An outcome far worse than Government opponents would have compromised for with hindsight.
Parliament could easily be powerful over Covid, even with the large Government majority. That it's not is because the key to limiting Government power is to oppose it on lockdown - because that is where any rebellion from within its own ranks is going to come from. But that won't happen whilst the main opposition is unwilling to exploit this to get its aims. Even if just threatening to vote with rebels to give the Govt the dilemma between following the agenda of the rebels - or following the opposition agenda of increasing financial support for workers and businesses.
Starmer really is a useless sack. Completely failed when it came to Brexit. Has now allied himself with perhaps the only person more identified by the public with undemocratically blocking Brexit than he is himself.
Meanwhile he lets the incompetence and needlessly authoritarian tendencies of the government go unpunished, because he thinks a few “forensic” questions before voting Aye is all that his job demands of him.
We’ve just had the revelation that the government maintained historic authoritarian powers on the back of bad data. But not only that, it was apparently done with the deliberate connivance of the Health Secretary against his own PM and Chancellor!
Where is the emergency motion to reopen last week’s vote? The throwing down of the gauntlet to the Tory rebels to vote down their own PM, on what would surely be a confidence matter?
He is the most disappointing and useless British political figure of this century, a very high bar to clear which he manages with ease. Next please.
I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.
But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.
For some reason, the basis for which escapes me, most of my presents these days...... Birthday, Christmas, Fathers Day....... seem to involve alcoholic drinks.
You won't hear someone who has worked in Parliament say this very often but I miss Bercow as Speaker. His willingness to ignore convention made Parliament (for good or ill) powerful during Brexit in a way that stands in stark contrast to how supine it's been over COVID.
Hoyle has his tantrums against the government but ultimately he's not willing to break any rules that might really piss them off. His fatal flaw is that he wants to be liked by his colleagues. He's a bit Michael Martin like in my opinion, although perhaps more intelligent.
Bercow really hated clerks because they told him that he couldn't do things because of precedent (that is largely their job) and his behaviour could be inexcusable. On the other hand he was wonderful with the other staff such as the security guards, guides, caterers. Always really helpful for things like organising school visits and he opened up Speaker's House to any staff grade for monthly lectures by other politicians.
An interesting picture, though a long time ago I was a clerk so that part of him has more weight with me. Sounds like hes a nice man unless he receives advice he doesn't like.
I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.
But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.
For some reason, the basis for which escapes me, most of my presents these days...... Birthday, Christmas, Fathers Day....... seem to involve alcoholic drinks.
Maybe you're no fun at parties?
People who a bottle of something alcoholic to a party are, I find, generally welcomed.
Mr. JohnL, not too surprised, Verstappen should be favourite.
Saw some stats (the powered by AWS stuff of which I'm fairly dubious) which reckons Hamilton's had the better starts this year. Not so sure I believe that. Maybe reaction off the line, but Verstappen's had the better first laps.
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
You won't hear someone who has worked in Parliament say this very often but I miss Bercow as Speaker. His willingness to ignore convention made Parliament (for good or ill) powerful during Brexit in a way that stands in stark contrast to how supine it's been over COVID.
Hoyle has his tantrums against the government but ultimately he's not willing to break any rules that might really piss them off. His fatal flaw is that he wants to be liked by his colleagues. He's a bit Michael Martin like in my opinion, although perhaps more intelligent.
Bercow really hated clerks because they told him that he couldn't do things because of precedent (that is largely their job) and his behaviour could be inexcusable. On the other hand he was wonderful with the other staff such as the security guards, guides, caterers. Always really helpful for things like organising school visits and he opened up Speaker's House to any staff grade for monthly lectures by other politicians.
Parliament was "powerful" during Brexit because the Government had no majority. And no majority for no course of action. And ultimately what did it achieve with this "power"? An outcome far worse than Government opponents would have compromised for with hindsight.
Parliament could easily be powerful over Covid, even with the large Government majority. That it's not is because the key to limiting Government power is to oppose it on lockdown - because that is where any rebellion from within its own ranks is going to come from. But that won't happen whilst the main opposition is unwilling to exploit this to get its aims. Even if just threatening to vote with rebels to give the Govt the dilemma between following the agenda of the rebels - or following the opposition agenda of increasing financial support for workers and businesses.
Starmer really is a useless sack. Completely failed when it came to Brexit. Has now allied himself with perhaps the only person more identified by the public with undemocratically blocking Brexit than he is himself.
Meanwhile he lets the incompetence and needlessly authoritarian tendencies of the government go unpunished, because he thinks a few “forensic” questions before voting Aye is all that his job demands of him.
We’ve just had the revelation that the government maintained historic authoritarian powers on the back of bad data. But not only that, it was apparently done with the deliberate connivance of the Health Secretary against his own PM and Chancellor!
Where is the emergency motion to reopen last week’s vote? The throwing down of the gauntlet to the Tory rebels to vote down their own PM, on what would surely be a confidence matter?
He is the most disappointing and useless British political figure of this century, a very high bar to clear which he manages with ease. Next please.
I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.
But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.
I have 3 kids and I love a bottle of single malt. But Fathers Day has never interested me. My kids love me. They don't need to be guilt tripped into having one random day where the card industry makes a bundle of profit for something they made up.
Mr. JohnL, not too surprised, Verstappen should be favourite.
Saw some stats (the powered by AWS stuff of which I'm fairly dubious) which reckons Hamilton's had the better starts this year. Not so sure I believe that. Maybe reaction off the line, but Verstappen's had the better first laps.
I should hope so, his dad was famous for this first laps. Never knew why.
I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.
But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.
For some reason, the basis for which escapes me, most of my presents these days...... Birthday, Christmas, Fathers Day....... seem to involve alcoholic drinks.
People tend to have a limited range of interests and the older they get the higher the chance they've already got the things they want, either purchased themselves or gifted in previous years. So you look for gifts that can be repeated or consumed.
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.
At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.
Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.
And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community
Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible
I'd have to say he'd come very high on the list of 'defections' any sensible political party would wish to avoid. I struggle to see an obvious voting cohort that would be following him from blue to red. Other reasons why blues might move of course but in Bercow's wake? No.
As an aside it seems from reports in the press and elsewhere that there may be something of a local difficulty for Labour with the Muslim vote in B & S. Apparently the fact that his wife is half Jewish is not helping their cause. If so what an extraordinary indictment of the party for its courting of factionalism for too many years now.
The Labour candidate in B&S is female.
I was referring to Starmer's wife which was cited in the reports. Re-reading I can see the confusion. I've no knowledge of the Labour candidate beyond her being Jo Cox's sister. The reports i read were talking about the anti-Starmer rumblings. Hilarious that even in the wake of the C & A defeat it is the Labour leader under pressure.
Why hilarious? Labour were down with the joke candidates - in a seat they came second in three and a half years ago.
In my family we had agreement people didn't get gifts for holidays or events if they were close to their birthday so card but no gift is the Fathers Day approach.
The exception is Christmas, where little fuss or gifts on the birthday and save it for the big gathering at Christmas.
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
Possibly - but convention is an enormous part of the UK constitution. If conventions are not broadly stuck to and respected then the whole thing falls apart very rapidly. Now that may be a (political) motivation for a supporter of a written constitution, but it is doubtful that that is the role of the Speaker. Whilst is the job of the Speaker to ensure that Parliament can hold the Government to account, I don't think it follows that "anything goes".
And of course with Bercow, whilst he made strong play of the idea that he was "asserting the rights of Parliament/backbenchers over an overmighty executive", and this was a pretty reasonable argument in the earlier years of his being in post, by the end it just looked as if he was doing so out of a level of strong partisanship on the major issue(s) of the day.
I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.
Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.
I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.
Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.
Yes, that was the first thing that occurred to me too.
That’s a worrying thought, because if Hancock’s for the chop, that means Williamson and Jenrick might just survive.
Of those 3 Hancock is indeed the stand out star.
The Star headline about Cumming’s revelations, “useless **** says useless **** called useless **** useless”, is unimprovable.
In my family we had agreement people didn't get gifts for holidays or events if they were close to their birthday so card but no gift is the Fathers Day approach.
The exception is Christmas, where little fuss or gifts on the birthday and save it for the big gathering at Christmas.
Eldest Grandson's birthday is a few days before Christmas. All through his childhood and youth his mother insisted that no Christmas decorations went up until after his birthday. Then he got married and had a home of his own he & his wife put the decorations up half way through December. Sadly, his mother had died of MND a few years before so wasn't there to comment, although his sister did!
I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.
But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.
For some reason, the basis for which escapes me, most of my presents these days...... Birthday, Christmas, Fathers Day....... seem to involve alcoholic drinks.
People tend to have a limited range of interests and the older they get the higher the chance they've already got the things they want, either purchased themselves or gifted in previous years. So you look for gifts that can be repeated or consumed.
Came across this rhyme somewhere as an aid for gift-giving: "Something to eat, something to read, something they want, something they need."
Bercow joining Labour is a gift to the Tory Party. The man who tried to single handedly defy the will of 17.4 million people and prevent Brexit joining Labour led by the Europhile Sir Keir Starmer will remind voters in Batley and Spens that the Labour party is a pro-EU party. From his lavish expenditure on the Speakers apartments to the unresolved allegations of bullying House of Commons employees, MR Bercow is hardly a gift to anyone.
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.
Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.
Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.
But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.
I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.
But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.
For some reason, the basis for which escapes me, most of my presents these days...... Birthday, Christmas, Fathers Day....... seem to involve alcoholic drinks.
People tend to have a limited range of interests and the older they get the higher the chance they've already got the things they want, either purchased themselves or gifted in previous years. So you look for gifts that can be repeated or consumed.
Came across this rhyme somewhere as an aid for gift-giving: "Something to eat, something to read, something they want, something they need."
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.
Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.
I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
Get a muzzle.
Typical leftie - first resort is to restrict someone’s freedom in case they do something
In my family we had agreement people didn't get gifts for holidays or events if they were close to their birthday so card but no gift is the Fathers Day approach.
The exception is Christmas, where little fuss or gifts on the birthday and save it for the big gathering at Christmas.
Eldest Grandson's birthday is a few days before Christmas. All through his childhood and youth his mother insisted that no Christmas decorations went up until after his birthday. Then he got married and had a home of his own he & his wife put the decorations up half way through December. Sadly, his mother had died of MND a few years before so wasn't there to comment, although his sister did!
My Dad's birthday is mid December - the tree had to be up for his Birthday..
I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.
Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.
I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.
Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.
Yes, that was the first thing that occurred to me too.
That’s a worrying thought, because if Hancock’s for the chop, that means Williamson and Jenrick might just survive.
Of those 3 Hancock is indeed the stand out star.
Hancock has clearly had successes, after the initial PPE disasters - and arguably a lot of the discontent/criticism of him now is actually because he is being too effective in asserting his will over the Government from people who are extremely unhappy over the ongoing restrictions and how they are being justified. Which, whatever else, i wouldn't really say met the definition of "hopeless".
If a PM can't find a way to assert himself over a "hopeless" Cabinet member, then the term is being assigned to the wrong individual.
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
Possibly - but convention is an enormous part of the UK constitution. If conventions are not broadly stuck to and respected then the whole thing falls apart very rapidly. Now that may be a (political) motivation for a supporter of a written constitution, but it is doubtful that that is the role of the Speaker. Whilst is the job of the Speaker to ensure that Parliament can hold the Government to account, I don't think it follows that "anything goes".
And of course with Bercow, whilst he made strong play of the idea that he was "asserting the rights of Parliament/backbenchers over an overmighty executive", and this was a pretty reasonable argument in the earlier years of his being in post, by the end it just looked as if he was doing so out of a level of strong partisanship on the major issue(s) of the day.
Agreed, though I’m inclined to give Bercow a bit more credit on the principle despite his obvious partisanship. The jury is still out on Hoyle AFAICS, but he does seem to be something of a paper tiger when it comes to asserting the rights of Parliament.
John Bercow attacks Conservative Party sounds a bit dog-bites-man. Though if he's going to be calling people nasty, xenophobic and reactionary he's at risk of having his past thrown back at him.
EDIT - Apologies, no he sat on the data which showed the vaccines were much more effective than had previously been assumed against Delta. Different witholding, same outcome.
Data on its own is meaningless
It needed to be put through the model. Could you update that analysis and validate it in time for a paper to circulated 48 hours ahead of decision day… no? Perhaps you should delay the decision by a week to allow it to be done accurately?
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
Possibly - but convention is an enormous part of the UK constitution. If conventions are not broadly stuck to and respected then the whole thing falls apart very rapidly. Now that may be a (political) motivation for a supporter of a written constitution, but it is doubtful that that is the role of the Speaker. Whilst is the job of the Speaker to ensure that Parliament can hold the Government to account, I don't think it follows that "anything goes".
And of course with Bercow, whilst he made strong play of the idea that he was "asserting the rights of Parliament/backbenchers over an overmighty executive", and this was a pretty reasonable argument in the earlier years of his being in post, by the end it just looked as if he was doing so out of a level of strong partisanship on the major issue(s) of the day.
On International Aid I don't know how much direct say the Commons normally has on how the government spends money. I know that the estimates are laid before Parliament, but I think the votes are normally on the taxation required to fund spending, rather than on what the spending is on itself.
International Aid is a bit different, because the commitment to 0.7% was passed into law, and so there would need to be a vote to change that law. So I would think that there's no particular hurry here for a vote by crow-barring an amendment onto another Bill. The law is still the law for 0.7%, and so then it is a matter for the courts to enforce on the Executive. The Commons doesn't need to do anything - unless it looks likely that the Executive will ignore a court ruling that they are in breach of the law.
The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.
At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.
Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.
And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community
Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible
I'd have to say he'd come very high on the list of 'defections' any sensible political party would wish to avoid. I struggle to see an obvious voting cohort that would be following him from blue to red. Other reasons why blues might move of course but in Bercow's wake? No.
As an aside it seems from reports in the press and elsewhere that there may be something of a local difficulty for Labour with the Muslim vote in B & S. Apparently the fact that his wife is half Jewish is not helping their cause. If so what an extraordinary indictment of the party for its courting of factionalism for too many years now.
The Labour candidate in B&S is female.
I was referring to Starmer's wife which was cited in the reports. Re-reading I can see the confusion. I've no knowledge of the Labour candidate beyond her being Jo Cox's sister. The reports i read were talking about the anti-Starmer rumblings. Hilarious that even in the wake of the C & A defeat it is the Labour leader under pressure.
It was seriously ambiguous. I thought you were referring to Bercow, who is of course Jewish himself. … No, the only thing I feel really ashamed about is that, when I joined the Monday Club, I joined its immigration, repatriation and race relations industry subcommittee. I’m deeply ashamed of that.”
So why did he do it? “Yes, what on earth was this north London Jewish boy doing teaming up with a bunch of bigots, racists and crypto-fascists? I think I was rather influenced by my father, who in many respects was a good dad – honest, loyal, hard working, he’s been dead for 33 years last week…” Again, the eyes brim and the voice cracks. “I don’t want to rubbish my dad, but it is possible for Jewish people to be racist, just as it is possible for people of other faiths to be. Dad was a creature of his time. He had a particular view about Commonwealth immigration. One day, I went to see him, and he mentioned Enoch Powell, whom he thought much maligned. I went off and read his [Powell’s] speeches, and I thought: wow, he’s got views about markets and price controls and Northern Ireland, and I fell for that. When you are a young person, you can be attracted by an ideology.”..
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.
Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.
Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.
But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.
‘The rules’ would also say that the government is breaking the law in reducing aid without a parliamentary vote.
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.
Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.
Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.
But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.
‘The rules’ would also say that the government is breaking the law in reducing aid without a parliamentary vote.
Sounds like a matter for the courts - two wrongs don't make a right, and if something is out of scope it is out of scope, discretion of presiding officer's is not supposed to be infinite.
You won't hear someone who has worked in Parliament say this very often but I miss Bercow as Speaker. His willingness to ignore convention made Parliament (for good or ill) powerful during Brexit in a way that stands in stark contrast to how supine it's been over COVID.
Hoyle has his tantrums against the government but ultimately he's not willing to break any rules that might really piss them off. His fatal flaw is that he wants to be liked by his colleagues. He's a bit Michael Martin like in my opinion, although perhaps more intelligent.
Bercow really hated clerks because they told him that he couldn't do things because of precedent (that is largely their job) and his behaviour could be inexcusable. On the other hand he was wonderful with the other staff such as the security guards, guides, caterers. Always really helpful for things like organising school visits and he opened up Speaker's House to any staff grade for monthly lectures by other politicians.
Parliament was "powerful" during Brexit because the Government had no majority. And no majority for no course of action. And ultimately what did it achieve with this "power"? An outcome far worse than Government opponents would have compromised for with hindsight.
Parliament could easily be powerful over Covid, even with the large Government majority. That it's not is because the key to limiting Government power is to oppose it on lockdown - because that is where any rebellion from within its own ranks is going to come from. But that won't happen whilst the main opposition is unwilling to exploit this to get its aims. Even if just threatening to vote with rebels to give the Govt the dilemma between following the agenda of the rebels - or following the opposition agenda of increasing financial support for workers and businesses.
Starmer really is a useless sack. Completely failed when it came to Brexit. Has now allied himself with perhaps the only person more identified by the public with undemocratically blocking Brexit than he is himself.
Meanwhile he lets the incompetence and needlessly authoritarian tendencies of the government go unpunished, because he thinks a few “forensic” questions before voting Aye is all that his job demands of him.
We’ve just had the revelation that the government maintained historic authoritarian powers on the back of bad data. But not only that, it was apparently done with the deliberate connivance of the Health Secretary against his own PM and Chancellor!
Where is the emergency motion to reopen last week’s vote? The throwing down of the gauntlet to the Tory rebels to vote down their own PM, on what would surely be a confidence matter?
He is the most disappointing and useless British political figure of this century, a very high bar to clear which he manages with ease. Next please.
He's the Iain Duncan-Smith of the Labour Party, but when the Tories want to get rid of an under performing leader they just have to write to the 1922 committee who will then organise an election.
The committee chairman will keep the names of the rebels confidential so that they can't lose anything if they fail to garner enough support.
Labour MPs who want to replace their leader have to mount a challenge themselves, publicly soliciting support from other rebels and they will all face losing their career if they fail to pull it off.
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
IN April 2019, Prime Minister Theresa May invited Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to take part in cross-party talks in an attempt to agree a unified approach to Brexit. Starmer, who in his role as Shadow Brexit Secretary had engaged the Tory Government in a long series of skirmishes since the vote to leave Europe, led the Labour delegation.
The meetings opened with some optimism. The Government team quickly discerned, however, that some of those in the Labour camp were more willing to compromise than others. While those in Corbyn’s close team ‘were sending out signals that they wanted a deal’, Starmer was insistent that an agreement had to include a second referendum......
According to May’s former director of communications Sir Robbie Gibb, he and his opposite number in the Labour delegation, Seumas Milne, would work together on how to communicate the progress of talks to journalists......
But, he says, ‘there were briefings to the BBC’s Today programme saying that the cross-party talks are going nowhere. ‘I’d get a call from the BBC saying, “I believe the talks are on the verge of collapse.”.....
‘”Well, who have you spoken to?”, I’d say. “Can’t say. It’s official sources.” It was completely disorientating. So the question is, who spoke to the journalists?’...
Sir David Lidington, a Tory who supported Remain who was closely involved in trying to pass the May deal that would have kept Britain more closely aligned with the EU than the one ultimately concluded by Johnson, reflects that whatever the mix of motives, ‘Starmer is one of the authors of a very hard Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind about that’.
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.
Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.
Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.
But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.
Johnson is breaching the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and is protected in doing so by the conventions that Hoyle is applying. Should Hoyle enforce the principle at the expense of the conventions? For the sake of argument let's say Bercow would have done so. Is Bercow the better Speaker? I would argue, Yes, but there is a cost to pay in the conventions. It's not a free pass.
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.
Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.
Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.
But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.
‘The rules’ would also say that the government is breaking the law in reducing aid without a parliamentary vote.
Sounds like a matter for the courts - two wrongs don't make a right, and if something is out of scope it is out of scope, discretion of presiding officer's is not supposed to be infinite.
It was a stupid law anyway - multi-year spending shouldn't be mandated in this way. Why is aid singled out for protection? It's because everybody knows the pledge is disliked and widely hated.
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
They've been doing it in films since forever
Because until very recently, that is what everyone was taught in school. If you’re over that age of fifty, that was your historical reality. Couple that with the postwar “we are the good guys” certainties, and you can understand how hard it is to relinquish that comfortable worldview.
The proposed Texas laws are going to be awkward to enforce, should they be enacted, as the state’s founding document doesn’t bother to adopt the periphrasis of the US constitution on those considered inferior races. … SEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.
SEC. 10. All persons, (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence, shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such.…
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).
The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.
At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.
Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.
And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community
Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible
I'd have to say he'd come very high on the list of 'defections' any sensible political party would wish to avoid. I struggle to see an obvious voting cohort that would be following him from blue to red. Other reasons why blues might move of course but in Bercow's wake? No.
As an aside it seems from reports in the press and elsewhere that there may be something of a local difficulty for Labour with the Muslim vote in B & S. Apparently the fact that his wife is half Jewish is not helping their cause. If so what an extraordinary indictment of the party for its courting of factionalism for too many years now.
The Labour candidate in B&S is female.
I was referring to Starmer's wife which was cited in the reports. Re-reading I can see the confusion. I've no knowledge of the Labour candidate beyond her being Jo Cox's sister. The reports i read were talking about the anti-Starmer rumblings. Hilarious that even in the wake of the C & A defeat it is the Labour leader under pressure.
Husband relates to me reports he has just read of situation in B&S. Galloway alleged to be doing unexpectedly well. Three causes: 1. Some local Muslims reminding their mates Starmer has a Jewish wife. 2. Same elements spreading rumours that Labour candidate is Lesbian. 3. Galloway also pursuing the Heavy Woollen vote. Thought is that he will come second to the Tory and has an outside chance of winning. Make of this what you will.
Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.
Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.
I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.
Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.
I detect game theory. Attack Johnson where he is weak, on the epidemic, and attack the protegé not the leader and let others stick the knife in.
Ironically Hancock is one of the less incompetent members of Johnson's cabinet (including Johnson himself).
Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.
Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.
Pick someone who isn't regarded by a set of Tory voters as incompetent...
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.
Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.
Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.
But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.
‘The rules’ would also say that the government is breaking the law in reducing aid without a parliamentary vote.
Sounds like a matter for the courts - two wrongs don't make a right, and if something is out of scope it is out of scope, discretion of presiding officer's is not supposed to be infinite.
Which of course, it isn’t, since it is at all times subject to the vote of a majority of MPs. While I take your point, I don’t think the matter nearly as clear cut.
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).
Woke needs to be opposed at every turn.
Opposing at every turn sounds a bit like cancel culture to me....
Whatever happened to treating things on their merits? Sometimes the woke have the better point, sometimes it is the anti-woke, sometimes they are about equally valid. Why does everything have to be so partisan and dogmatic nowadays? It is probably down to Twatter and other social media but we need to get past that.
What's the option? We've been bombing Afghanistan for nearly 20 years (and Iraq for 30 including a HMS QE photo op coming soon). At some point reality has to intrude and realise whatever it is we think we're doing isn't working.
Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.
Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.
He has the problem of being very short. It doesn't look.good on camera. Look at Sadiq Khan. Like it or not, being vertically challenged is an issue. Who was the last PM who was under 5ft 6?
Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.
Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.
Who is the most overpromoted and overrated senior minister in a long while?
But then Priti Patel is also there so maybe not. I suppose this is where identity politics gets you.
IN April 2019, Prime Minister Theresa May invited Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to take part in cross-party talks in an attempt to agree a unified approach to Brexit. Starmer, who in his role as Shadow Brexit Secretary had engaged the Tory Government in a long series of skirmishes since the vote to leave Europe, led the Labour delegation.
The meetings opened with some optimism. The Government team quickly discerned, however, that some of those in the Labour camp were more willing to compromise than others. While those in Corbyn’s close team ‘were sending out signals that they wanted a deal’, Starmer was insistent that an agreement had to include a second referendum......
According to May’s former director of communications Sir Robbie Gibb, he and his opposite number in the Labour delegation, Seumas Milne, would work together on how to communicate the progress of talks to journalists......
But, he says, ‘there were briefings to the BBC’s Today programme saying that the cross-party talks are going nowhere. ‘I’d get a call from the BBC saying, “I believe the talks are on the verge of collapse.”.....
‘”Well, who have you spoken to?”, I’d say. “Can’t say. It’s official sources.” It was completely disorientating. So the question is, who spoke to the journalists?’...
Sir David Lidington, a Tory who supported Remain who was closely involved in trying to pass the May deal that would have kept Britain more closely aligned with the EU than the one ultimately concluded by Johnson, reflects that whatever the mix of motives, ‘Starmer is one of the authors of a very hard Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind about that’.
There’s a video is Starmer around that tune saying that it’s an important point of principle that Labour demand a second referendum and would campaign for Remain if they get it. He is the ultimate Brexit blocker, & 65% of constituencies voted Leave. Leavers won’t vote for him. They should get rid of him now if they want any chance of winning the next GE in my opinion.
IN April 2019, Prime Minister Theresa May invited Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to take part in cross-party talks in an attempt to agree a unified approach to Brexit. Starmer, who in his role as Shadow Brexit Secretary had engaged the Tory Government in a long series of skirmishes since the vote to leave Europe, led the Labour delegation.
The meetings opened with some optimism. The Government team quickly discerned, however, that some of those in the Labour camp were more willing to compromise than others. While those in Corbyn’s close team ‘were sending out signals that they wanted a deal’, Starmer was insistent that an agreement had to include a second referendum......
According to May’s former director of communications Sir Robbie Gibb, he and his opposite number in the Labour delegation, Seumas Milne, would work together on how to communicate the progress of talks to journalists......
But, he says, ‘there were briefings to the BBC’s Today programme saying that the cross-party talks are going nowhere. ‘I’d get a call from the BBC saying, “I believe the talks are on the verge of collapse.”.....
‘”Well, who have you spoken to?”, I’d say. “Can’t say. It’s official sources.” It was completely disorientating. So the question is, who spoke to the journalists?’...
Sir David Lidington, a Tory who supported Remain who was closely involved in trying to pass the May deal that would have kept Britain more closely aligned with the EU than the one ultimately concluded by Johnson, reflects that whatever the mix of motives, ‘Starmer is one of the authors of a very hard Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind about that’.
There’s a video is Starmer around that tune saying that it’s an important point of principle that Labour demand a second referendum and would campaign for Remain if they get it. He is the ultimate Brexit blocker, & 65% of constituencies voted Leave. Leavers won’t vote for him. They should get rid of him now if they want any chance of winning the next GE in my opinion.
Remainers, except maybe the most purist, probably shouldn't vote for him either if he enabled a hard Brexit.
The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.
At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.
Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.
And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community
Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible
I'd have to say he'd come very high on the list of 'defections' any sensible political party would wish to avoid. I struggle to see an obvious voting cohort that would be following him from blue to red. Other reasons why blues might move of course but in Bercow's wake? No.
As an aside it seems from reports in the press and elsewhere that there may be something of a local difficulty for Labour with the Muslim vote in B & S. Apparently the fact that his wife is half Jewish is not helping their cause. If so what an extraordinary indictment of the party for its courting of factionalism for too many years now.
The Labour candidate in B&S is female.
I was referring to Starmer's wife which was cited in the reports. Re-reading I can see the confusion. I've no knowledge of the Labour candidate beyond her being Jo Cox's sister. The reports i read were talking about the anti-Starmer rumblings. Hilarious that even in the wake of the C & A defeat it is the Labour leader under pressure.
Husband relates to me reports he has just read of situation in B&S. Galloway alleged to be doing unexpectedly well. Three causes: 1. Some local Muslims reminding their mates Starmer has a Jewish wife. 2. Same elements spreading rumours that Labour candidate is Lesbian. 3. Galloway also pursuing the Heavy Woollen vote. Thought is that he will come second to the Tory and has an outside chance of winning. Make of this what you will.
George Galloway standing up for the under-represented anti-Semites and Homophobes. Look in the mirror, George - it ain't pretty.
The way Hancock has been thrown to the wolves for the UK not opening up on 21 June is hilarious.
If the UK had applied the same terminology to influenza since 1945, we'd now be in the 75th wave ... or thereabouts ... and roughly the 20-thousandth and fiftieth variant; it mutates more than coronaviruses.
Has anyone asked in the mainstream media if Delta, while more infectious than Gamma, is also less deadly? (going the way of all viruses, as with 1957 and 1968 'pandemic flu' weakening and turning into 'seasonal flu')
Has anyone asked if the UK has thought of treating Delta cases with Ivermectin or other cheap generic drugs as in India?
No, I thought not.
That's the outcome when a government has a well-constructed false narrative to protect, becomes the biggest press advertiser and OFCOM forces broadcasters to support the government line and not allow a balanced debate.
IN April 2019, Prime Minister Theresa May invited Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to take part in cross-party talks in an attempt to agree a unified approach to Brexit. Starmer, who in his role as Shadow Brexit Secretary had engaged the Tory Government in a long series of skirmishes since the vote to leave Europe, led the Labour delegation.
The meetings opened with some optimism. The Government team quickly discerned, however, that some of those in the Labour camp were more willing to compromise than others. While those in Corbyn’s close team ‘were sending out signals that they wanted a deal’, Starmer was insistent that an agreement had to include a second referendum......
According to May’s former director of communications Sir Robbie Gibb, he and his opposite number in the Labour delegation, Seumas Milne, would work together on how to communicate the progress of talks to journalists......
But, he says, ‘there were briefings to the BBC’s Today programme saying that the cross-party talks are going nowhere. ‘I’d get a call from the BBC saying, “I believe the talks are on the verge of collapse.”.....
‘”Well, who have you spoken to?”, I’d say. “Can’t say. It’s official sources.” It was completely disorientating. So the question is, who spoke to the journalists?’...
Sir David Lidington, a Tory who supported Remain who was closely involved in trying to pass the May deal that would have kept Britain more closely aligned with the EU than the one ultimately concluded by Johnson, reflects that whatever the mix of motives, ‘Starmer is one of the authors of a very hard Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind about that’.
There’s a video is Starmer around that tune saying that it’s an important point of principle that Labour demand a second referendum and would campaign for Remain if they get it. He is the ultimate Brexit blocker, & 65% of constituencies voted Leave. Leavers won’t vote for him. They should get rid of him now if they want any chance of winning the next GE in my opinion.
I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.
Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.
I detect game theory. Attack Johnson where he is weak, on the epidemic, and attack the protegé not the leader and let others stick the knife in.
Ironically Hancock is one of the less incompetent members of Johnson's cabinet (including Johnson himself).
For fun, I also note at least five of the Thirty Six Strategems in play. Maybe on Dom's reading list ?
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).
Woke needs to be opposed at every turn.
It does, but you have to careful not to become 'Woke' yourself in the other direction. All sides should be able to express a reasonable opposing view without being shouted down by opponents.
The report this morning about the royal yacht - though comical - does foreshadow what we can expect to be a significant tussle inside the government about fiscal policy.
Rishi is very dry, and his budget earlier this year foreshadowed another five-ten years of austerity.
I hate to put any ideology on Johnson, but it is certainly clear he is fond of spending (other people’s) money.
I imagine Gove is in the Rishi camp; which reminds me of the other split, between pro-Union Gove and couldnt-care-less Johnson.
While Johnson rides high in the opinion polls, all of this can be papered over...
A savvy Labour Party would be looking to expose these internal contradictions, but Keir is too useless for that.
The report this morning about the royal yacht - though comical - does foreshadow what we can expect to be a significant tussle inside the government about fiscal policy.
Rishi is very dry, and his budget earlier this year foreshadowed another five-ten years of austerity.
I hate to put any ideology on Johnson, but it is certainly clear he is fond of spending (other people’s) money.
I imagine Gove is in the Rishi camp; which reminds me of the other split, between pro-Union Gove and couldnt-care-less Johnson.
While Johnson rides high in the opinion polls, all of this can be papered over...
A savvy Labour Party would be looking to expose these internal contradictions, but Keir is too useless for that.
I thought HMQ distanced herself from it, so it is a national yacht not a royal one?
Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.
Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.
He has the problem of being very short. It doesn't look.good on camera. Look at Sadiq Khan. Like it or not, being vertically challenged is an issue. Who was the last PM who was under 5ft 6?
I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.
Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.
I detect game theory. Attack Johnson where he is weak, on the epidemic, and attack the protegé not the leader and let others stick the knife in.
Ironically Hancock is one of the less incompetent members of Johnson's cabinet (including Johnson himself).
For fun, I also note at least five of the Thirty Six Strategems in play. Maybe on Dom's reading list ?
Attack Wei, Get Zhao
Kill with a borrowed knife
Lure the tiger off the mountain
Muddy the waters to catch the fish
Pretend to be mad
Replace the beams with rotten timbers is surely the principle behind cabinet appointment ?
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).
Woke needs to be opposed at every turn.
Opposing at every turn sounds a bit like cancel culture to me....
Whatever happened to treating things on their merits? Sometimes the woke have the better point, sometimes it is the anti-woke, sometimes they are about equally valid. Why does everything have to be so partisan and dogmatic nowadays? It is probably down to Twatter and other social media but we need to get past that.
Yep. Eg. There are some seriously problematic issues around the pro-trans agenda (such as, to pick a few, the extent to it impinges on feminism, women’s perception of vulnerability, sporting competition etc). On the other hand there are areas where there are areas of disadvantage and little understanding that sex and gender aren’t quite so binary as traditional approaches have implied.
But the current debate allows little room for such nuance to the extent that most moderate voices are too scared to get involved because of the hate that can depend if heads get put too far above the parapet. That is not a good place to be.
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ? Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).
Woke needs to be opposed at every turn.
Opposing at every turn sounds a bit like cancel culture to me....
Whatever happened to treating things on their merits? Sometimes the woke have the better point, sometimes it is the anti-woke, sometimes they are about equally valid. Why does everything have to be so partisan and dogmatic nowadays? It is probably down to Twatter and other social media but we need to get past that.
Yep. Eg. There are some seriously problematic issues around the pro-trans agenda (such as, to pick a few, the extent to it impinges on feminism, women’s perception of vulnerability, sporting competition etc). On the other hand there are areas where there are areas of disadvantage and little understanding that sex and gender aren’t quite so binary as traditional approaches have implied.
But the current debate allows little room for such nuance to the extent that most moderate voices are too scared to get involved because of the hate that can depend if heads get put too far above the parapet. That is not a good place to be.
Nuance? Obviously that is ideal but simply listening to the "other" side and contemplating if they have a point or not would be a huge improvement on recent discourse.
All the evidence we have is that he is in the main a hollow self-promoter and while I don’t doubt he has worked hard during the pandemic, he’s obviously out of his depth.
Compare with Hunt.
Mind you, before Hunt was the disastrous Lansley and under New Labour, Health seemed to be some kind of temporary resting spot.
You have to go back to Bottomley to find another decent Health Sec?
The way Hancock has been thrown to the wolves for the UK not opening up on 21 June is hilarious.
If the UK had applied the same terminology to influenza since 1945, we'd now be in the 75th wave ... or thereabouts ... and roughly the 20-thousandth and fiftieth variant; it mutates more than coronaviruses.
Has anyone asked in the mainstream media if Delta, while more infectious than Gamma, is also less deadly? (going the way of all viruses, as with 1957 and 1968 'pandemic flu' weakening and turning into 'seasonal flu')
Has anyone asked if the UK has thought of treating Delta cases with Ivermectin or other cheap generic drugs as in India?
No, I thought not.
That's the outcome when a government has a well-constructed false narrative to protect, becomes the biggest press advertiser and OFCOM forces broadcasters to support the government line and not allow a balanced debate.
If a strain of influenza caused 128,000 deaths despite massive public health interventions and could be spread easily by asymptomatic carriers, we would undoubtedly lock down.
Fortunately, that doesn’t apply. Even when it gets really bad - e.g. in 1958 or 1967 - there were half the number of deaths, without lockdown and with much less advanced medicine.
The way Hancock has been thrown to the wolves for the UK not opening up on 21 June is hilarious.
If the UK had applied the same terminology to influenza since 1945, we'd now be in the 75th wave ... or thereabouts ... and roughly the 20-thousandth and fiftieth variant; it mutates more than coronaviruses.
Has anyone asked in the mainstream media if Delta, while more infectious than Gamma, is also less deadly? (going the way of all viruses, as with 1957 and 1968 'pandemic flu' weakening and turning into 'seasonal flu')
Has anyone asked if the UK has thought of treating Delta cases with Ivermectin or other cheap generic drugs as in India?
No, I thought not.
That's the outcome when a government has a well-constructed false narrative to protect, becomes the biggest press advertiser and OFCOM forces broadcasters to support the government line and not allow a balanced debate.
I don’t think you can totally dismiss the fact that the pharmaceutical companies have quite a vested interest in ongoing booster vaccines for virus variants being necessary...
The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.
At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.
Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.
And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community
Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible
I'd have to say he'd come very high on the list of 'defections' any sensible political party would wish to avoid. I struggle to see an obvious voting cohort that would be following him from blue to red. Other reasons why blues might move of course but in Bercow's wake? No.
As an aside it seems from reports in the press and elsewhere that there may be something of a local difficulty for Labour with the Muslim vote in B & S. Apparently the fact that his wife is half Jewish is not helping their cause. If so what an extraordinary indictment of the party for its courting of factionalism for too many years now.
The Labour candidate in B&S is female.
I was referring to Starmer's wife which was cited in the reports. Re-reading I can see the confusion. I've no knowledge of the Labour candidate beyond her being Jo Cox's sister. The reports i read were talking about the anti-Starmer rumblings. Hilarious that even in the wake of the C & A defeat it is the Labour leader under pressure.
Husband relates to me reports he has just read of situation in B&S. Galloway alleged to be doing unexpectedly well. Three causes: 1. Some local Muslims reminding their mates Starmer has a Jewish wife. 2. Same elements spreading rumours that Labour candidate is Lesbian. 3. Galloway also pursuing the Heavy Woollen vote. Thought is that he will come second to the Tory and has an outside chance of winning. Make of this what you will.
George Galloway standing up for the under-represented anti-Semites and Homophobes. Look in the mirror, George - it ain't pretty.
One of the less remarked upon tensions in Labour's crumbling voter coalition is that between the ultra liberal metropolitan ascendency (especially with the present obsession with transgender issues) and the Muslim vote, which has historically broken very strongly for Labour but much of which also harbours highly socially conservative views which ceased to be mainstream in society a long time ago. Especially since Corbyn went and Labour replaced Palestine as a priority with mending fences with Jews, an opening has appeared for candidates like Galloway to exploit.
F1: one of those weekends when it's hard to find much of anything. Backed Sainz at 3 for best of the rest. If I didn't blog every race weekend I suspect I would've skipped this one.
Chance of rain, plus the possibility that Merc’s race pace is better than their qualifying. I’m tempted to lay Verstappen who’s currently near evens, or back Hamilton.
Berrow shouldn't get any baubles. Not because he is Bercow, but because he's only in the frame for one because he managed to snag a cushy job due to his connections in Parliament. No one should get any gongs for doing their job. I've done my job damn well for over 20 years, but when I exit stage left in a few months I'll get a bit of paper from the chief and if I'm lucky, a mounted axe and brass BA tally from whoever chips in to buy it. Convention needs to be chucked out along with all the silly costumes and farting about that goes on in Westminster. There's a country to run and a pandemic to get out of. Arseholes moaning about a bit of glitter need to get with the programme.
All the evidence we have is that he is in the main a hollow self-promoter and while I don’t doubt he has worked hard during the pandemic, he’s obviously out of his depth.
Compare with Hunt.
Mind you, before Hunt was the disastrous Lansley and under New Labour, Health seemed to be some kind of temporary resting spot.
You have to go back to Bottomley to find another decent Health Sec?
I don’t think @Foxy is the biggest fan of Hunt. Junior doctors etc.
Mind you, as a good medic he doubtless treats all Health Secretaries much as I treat education Secretaries - with a mix of fear, loathing, despair and sheer f***ing astonishment that somebody that ignorant can rise to the top.
The report this morning about the royal yacht - though comical - does foreshadow what we can expect to be a significant tussle inside the government about fiscal policy.
The MoD are in full and glorious retreat from the concept. Presumably somebody has fired up Excel and worked out the consequences of crewing it.
All the evidence we have is that he is in the main a hollow self-promoter and while I don’t doubt he has worked hard during the pandemic, he’s obviously out of his depth.
Compare with Hunt.
Mind you, before Hunt was the disastrous Lansley and under New Labour, Health seemed to be some kind of temporary resting spot.
You have to go back to Bottomley to find another decent Health Sec?
I don’t think @Foxy is the biggest fan of Hunt. Junior doctors etc.
Mind you, as a good medic he doubtless treats all Health Secretaries much as I treat education Secretaries - with a mix of fear, loathing, despair and sheer f***ing astonishment that somebody that ignorant can rise to the top.
Hunt does at least acknowledge some of the mistakes he made in post. It’s not impossible that he’s learned from some of them. That makes him unusual.
Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.
Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.
That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.
The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote. Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.
Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.
Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.
But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.
‘The rules’ would also say that the government is breaking the law in reducing aid without a parliamentary vote.
Sounds like a matter for the courts - two wrongs don't make a right, and if something is out of scope it is out of scope, discretion of presiding officer's is not supposed to be infinite.
It was a stupid law anyway - multi-year spending shouldn't be mandated in this way. Why is aid singled out for protection? It's because everybody knows the pledge is disliked and widely hated.
The government made an unpopular pledge to court popularity?
F1: one of those weekends when it's hard to find much of anything. Backed Sainz at 3 for best of the rest. If I didn't blog every race weekend I suspect I would've skipped this one.
Chance of rain, plus the possibility that Merc’s race pace is better than their qualifying. I’m tempted to lay Verstappen who’s currently near evens, or back Hamilton.
Thoughts ?
F3 race is on full wets, but though it will clear a bit after lunch.
F1: one of those weekends when it's hard to find much of anything. Backed Sainz at 3 for best of the rest. If I didn't blog every race weekend I suspect I would've skipped this one.
Chance of rain, plus the possibility that Merc’s race pace is better than their qualifying. I’m tempted to lay Verstappen who’s currently near evens, or back Hamilton.
Thoughts ?
F3 race is on full wets, but though it will clear a bit after lunch.
F1: one of those weekends when it's hard to find much of anything. Backed Sainz at 3 for best of the rest. If I didn't blog every race weekend I suspect I would've skipped this one.
Chance of rain, plus the possibility that Merc’s race pace is better than their qualifying. I’m tempted to lay Verstappen who’s currently near evens, or back Hamilton.
Thoughts ?
F3 race is on full wets, but though it will clear a bit after lunch.
Do you mind not posting about the race once it's started? Or else using the spoiler alert HTML thing. For those of us not on Sky.
F1: one of those weekends when it's hard to find much of anything. Backed Sainz at 3 for best of the rest. If I didn't blog every race weekend I suspect I would've skipped this one.
Chance of rain, plus the possibility that Merc’s race pace is better than their qualifying. I’m tempted to lay Verstappen who’s currently near evens, or back Hamilton.
Thoughts ?
F3 race is on full wets, but though it will clear a bit after lunch.
Do you mind not posting about the race once it's started? Or else using the spoiler alert HTML thing. For those of us not on Sky.
I dunno. Cheltenham Festival was in March, and didn’t have any guests in any case IIRC. So I dunno. What was it?
Not a clue.
Oh I thought it was intended as a rhetorical question! If not, then the “event” is the same as everywhere else in the country. Indoor hospitality opening on May 17th.
Comments
Meanwhile he lets the incompetence and needlessly authoritarian tendencies of the government go unpunished, because he thinks a few “forensic” questions before voting Aye is all that his job demands of him.
We’ve just had the revelation that the government maintained historic authoritarian powers on the back of bad data. But not only that, it was apparently done with the deliberate connivance of the Health Secretary against his own PM and Chancellor!
Where is the emergency motion to reopen last week’s vote? The throwing down of the gauntlet to the Tory rebels to vote down their own PM, on what would surely be a confidence matter?
He is the most disappointing and useless British political figure of this century, a very high bar to clear which he manages with ease. Next please.
Saw some stats (the powered by AWS stuff of which I'm fairly dubious) which reckons Hamilton's had the better starts this year. Not so sure I believe that. Maybe reaction off the line, but Verstappen's had the better first laps.
Anthony Seldon. Will Boris Johnson be one of the great Prime Ministers
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/will-boris-johnson-be-one-of-the-great-pri
Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.
The exception is Christmas, where little fuss or gifts on the birthday and save it for the big gathering at Christmas.
And of course with Bercow, whilst he made strong play of the idea that he was "asserting the rights of Parliament/backbenchers over an overmighty executive", and this was a pretty reasonable argument in the earlier years of his being in post, by the end it just looked as if he was doing so out of a level of strong partisanship on the major issue(s) of the day.
Then he got married and had a home of his own he & his wife put the decorations up half way through December.
Sadly, his mother had died of MND a few years before so wasn't there to comment, although his sister did!
Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.
Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.
But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.
If a PM can't find a way to assert himself over a "hopeless" Cabinet member, then the term is being assigned to the wrong individual.
Williamson on the other hand...
The jury is still out on Hoyle AFAICS, but he does seem to be something of a paper tiger when it comes to asserting the rights of Parliament.
It needed to be put through the model. Could you update that analysis and validate it in time for a paper to circulated 48 hours ahead of decision day… no? Perhaps you should delay the decision by a week to allow it to be done accurately?
International Aid is a bit different, because the commitment to 0.7% was passed into law, and so there would need to be a vote to change that law. So I would think that there's no particular hurry here for a vote by crow-barring an amendment onto another Bill. The law is still the law for 0.7%, and so then it is a matter for the courts to enforce on the Executive. The Commons doesn't need to do anything - unless it looks likely that the Executive will ignore a court ruling that they are in breach of the law.
… No, the only thing I feel really ashamed about is that, when I joined the Monday Club, I joined its immigration, repatriation and race relations industry subcommittee. I’m deeply ashamed of that.”
So why did he do it? “Yes, what on earth was this north London Jewish boy doing teaming up with a bunch of bigots, racists and crypto-fascists? I think I was rather influenced by my father, who in many respects was a good dad – honest, loyal, hard working, he’s been dead for 33 years last week…” Again, the eyes brim and the voice cracks. “I don’t want to rubbish my dad, but it is possible for Jewish people to be racist, just as it is possible for people of other faiths to be. Dad was a creature of his time. He had a particular view about Commonwealth immigration. One day, I went to see him, and he mentioned Enoch Powell, whom he thought much maligned. I went off and read his [Powell’s] speeches, and I thought: wow, he’s got views about markets and price controls and Northern Ireland, and I fell for that. When you are a young person, you can be attracted by an ideology.”..
"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "
in Telegraph
The committee chairman will keep the names of the rebels confidential so that they can't lose anything if they fail to garner enough support.
Labour MPs who want to replace their leader have to mount a challenge themselves, publicly soliciting support from other rebels and they will all face losing their career if they fail to pull it off.
“Western politicians, including in the UK, shield their eyes. They don’t want to see, let alone discuss, what’s about to happen”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/20/catastrophe-stalks-afghanistan-as-the-us-and-uk-dash-for-the-exit
Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.
Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html
H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…
The meetings opened with some optimism. The Government team quickly discerned, however, that some of those in the Labour camp were more willing to compromise than others. While those in Corbyn’s close team ‘were sending out signals that they wanted a deal’, Starmer was insistent that an agreement had to include a second referendum......
According to May’s former director of communications Sir Robbie Gibb, he and his opposite number in the Labour delegation, Seumas Milne, would work together on how to communicate the progress of talks to journalists......
But, he says, ‘there were briefings to the BBC’s Today programme saying that the cross-party talks are going nowhere. ‘I’d get a call from the BBC saying, “I believe the talks are on the verge of collapse.”.....
‘”Well, who have you spoken to?”, I’d say. “Can’t say. It’s official sources.” It was completely disorientating. So the question is, who spoke to the journalists?’...
Sir David Lidington, a Tory who supported Remain who was closely involved in trying to pass the May deal that would have kept Britain more closely aligned with the EU than the one ultimately concluded by Johnson, reflects that whatever the mix of motives, ‘Starmer is one of the authors of a very hard Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind about that’.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2021/06/starmers-brexit-calamity-the-irony-is-exquisite/
Spoiler: It does.
It looks like, compared to winter:
- shorter stays currently lead to ~25% fewer covid occupied beds
- this % is slowly increasing
Explanation below (1/n)
https://twitter.com/nicfreeman1209/status/1406506033414033408?s=20
The proposed Texas laws are going to be awkward to enforce, should they be enacted, as the state’s founding document doesn’t bother to adopt the periphrasis of the US constitution on those considered inferior races.
… SEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.
SEC. 10. All persons, (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence, shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such.…
Ironically Hancock is one of the less incompetent members of Johnson's cabinet (including Johnson himself).
While I take your point, I don’t think the matter nearly as clear cut.
Whatever happened to treating things on their merits? Sometimes the woke have the better point, sometimes it is the anti-woke, sometimes they are about equally valid. Why does everything have to be so partisan and dogmatic nowadays? It is probably down to Twatter and other social media but we need to get past that.
But then Priti Patel is also there so maybe not. I suppose this is where identity politics gets you.
Has anyone asked in the mainstream media if Delta, while more infectious than Gamma, is also less deadly? (going the way of all viruses, as with 1957 and 1968 'pandemic flu' weakening and turning into 'seasonal flu')
Has anyone asked if the UK has thought of treating Delta cases with Ivermectin or other cheap generic drugs as in India?
No, I thought not.
That's the outcome when a government has a well-constructed false narrative to protect, becomes the biggest press advertiser and OFCOM forces broadcasters to support the government line and not allow a balanced debate.
And:
We need to ask the public whether they are prepared to leave with the best deal that can be negotiated or whether they wouldn’t rather stay in the EU.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/keir-starmer-labour-is-committed-to-a-second-referendum-a4243906.html
All sides should be able to express a reasonable opposing view without being shouted down by opponents.
Rishi is very dry, and his budget earlier this year foreshadowed another five-ten years of austerity.
I hate to put any ideology on Johnson, but it is certainly clear he is fond of spending (other people’s) money.
I imagine Gove is in the Rishi camp; which reminds me of the other split, between pro-Union Gove and couldnt-care-less Johnson.
While Johnson rides high in the opinion polls, all of this can be papered over...
A savvy Labour Party would be looking to expose these internal contradictions, but Keir is too useless for that.
It’s been five years, guys. Time to move on.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/buckingham-palace-displeased-about-suggestions-of-a-new-royal-yacht-in-prince-philips-name-159130/
But the current debate allows little room for such nuance to the extent that most moderate voices are too scared to get involved because of the hate that can depend if heads get put too far above the parapet. That is not a good place to be.
All the evidence we have is that he is in the main a hollow self-promoter and while I don’t doubt he has worked hard during the pandemic, he’s obviously out of his depth.
Compare with Hunt.
Mind you, before Hunt was the disastrous Lansley and under New Labour, Health seemed to be some kind of temporary resting spot.
You have to go back to Bottomley to find another decent Health Sec?
Fortunately, that doesn’t apply. Even when it gets really bad - e.g. in 1958 or 1967 - there were half the number of deaths, without lockdown and with much less advanced medicine.
I’m tempted to lay Verstappen who’s currently near evens, or back Hamilton.
Thoughts ?
Mind you, as a good medic he doubtless treats all Health Secretaries much as I treat education Secretaries - with a mix of fear, loathing, despair and sheer f***ing astonishment that somebody that ignorant can rise to the top.
That makes him unusual.
In any case, at some stage in the game we have to ride out the exit wave, or surely face it during the winter?
1) It’s all outside
2) Almost everyone arrives by car, because it’s a bastard to get to by any mainline train route
3) There’s ample space for crowds to spread out.
There’s no evidence at all that it caused a big spike in infections last year. There was one map which had been misunderstood.
Certainly much less likely to spread infections than the Underground would be.
If you're referring to the Cheltenham festival then it finished on the 19th of MARCH.
Which is as easy to check as the election results in East Dunbartonshire.