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.
What is the downside of the dog being put down? If you want a dog buy it as a puppy and bring it up to be a nice dog. The world is oversupplied with fucking horrible quote rescue unquote dogs which get sent to shelters in the first place because they are too fucking horrible for their owners to deal with but nobody can cope with the guilt of terminating them. Dogs which bite humans, or other dogs, or livestock, need killing.
Can see a pretty hefty downside from the dog's POV.
If it hasn't been tried already, I would put the dog on a raw food diet, and give it plenty of exercise and controlled play time.
Raw food is more hassle but much better for dogs. I have seen it transform their behaviour, in particular reducing aggression and hyperactivity.
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.
It was supposed to show that the Tory party had changed.
Breaking their own law also shows that the party has changed, of course
Do we need more saints? John Paul II was crazy when it came to saint making apparently, and there's tons and tons who have been put on the path but haven't had it confirmed yet.
I think you need 2 miracles to become a saint and it’s harder to convince people of those these days
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.
What is the downside of the dog being put down? If you want a dog buy it as a puppy and bring it up to be a nice dog. The world is oversupplied with fucking horrible quote rescue unquote dogs which get sent to shelters in the first place because they are too fucking horrible for their owners to deal with but nobody can cope with the guilt of terminating them. Dogs which bite humans, or other dogs, or livestock, need killing.
Slightly less drastically, could you not just have the teeth filed down?
There is no benefit to Labour in gaining Bercow's support, beyond gaining a single vote. And I suspect they had that anyway. He would have been far more annoying for the Tories by pretending still to be one. Hopefully he gets his peerage now!
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')
Yes. PHE have ongoing surveillance. The risk of serious disease in Delta is about twice that of Alpha (Gamma is largely not particularly relevant to the UK.) It's too soon to measure the risk of death accurately but it's very likely to be higher.
It is flat out untrue to say that *all* viruses become less deadly. HIV is still as deadly as ever, if untreated. Polio. Measles. Ebola.
If you think there is evolutionary pressure to become less deadly, for a virus which transmits prior to symptoms, then you misunderstand evolution.
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.
Yes. There are ongoing studies into the efficacy of several cheap medications, including Ivermectin. Early studies did *not* show Ivermectin to be effective.
Did you bother to google for these basic questions before posting here? Did you check the information, from whichever misinformed website you got it from, before you swallowed it whole? Do you care whether you perpetuate lies?
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...
Yes I'm sceptical of the way the NHS now operates as a distributor for pharma and seems less interested in prevention and cheap effective treatments than ever.
Merck tried to disown Ivermectin, which it had actively commercialised and sold for decades, because it's now developing two other drugs. They'll be patented ... kerching.
Matt Hancock failed to tell Boris Johnson about a major Public Health England (PHE) study showing the effectiveness of vaccines against the Indian or delta variant during a key meeting to decide whether to extend Covid restrictions, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Telegraph understands that the Health Secretary had known about the PHE data three days before the "quad" of four senior ministers, led by the Prime Minister, met last Sunday to decide whether to postpone the planned June 21 reopening until July 19.
However, multiple sources familiar with the meeting said it was not raised by Mr Hancock or discussed at all during the course of the talks.
The data was also not included in briefing papers given to Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in advance of the meeting.
The bombshell disclosure raises the possibility that the quad could have opted to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on Monday if they had been aware of the study, which showed that both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were more effective at preventing hospitalisation with the variant than they were against previous strains.
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.
That's absolutely not the case.
The rules say that aid can be reduced for a number of reasons, including financial, and that if that happens the government needs to make a statement in Parliament explaining why. That's happened.
Hence why we aren't getting muppets like Jolyon pestering the courts about this.
Matt Hancock failed to tell Boris Johnson about a major Public Health England (PHE) study showing the effectiveness of vaccines against the Indian or delta variant during a key meeting to decide whether to extend Covid restrictions, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Telegraph understands that the Health Secretary had known about the PHE data three days before the "quad" of four senior ministers, led by the Prime Minister, met last Sunday to decide whether to postpone the planned June 21 reopening until July 19.
However, multiple sources familiar with the meeting said it was not raised by Mr Hancock or discussed at all during the course of the talks.
The data was also not included in briefing papers given to Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in advance of the meeting.
The bombshell disclosure raises the possibility that the quad could have opted to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on Monday if they had been aware of the study, which showed that both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were more effective at preventing hospitalisation with the variant than they were against previous strains.
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.
It was supposed to show that the Tory party had changed.
And this is where I think Cameron's logic broke down, for two reasons. One is that after the Financial Crisis, people were much less willing overall to piss money away as they had been under Blair. And the other is that the point of showing you've changed is, presumably, to get more votes. In that case, you should make popular pledges, not unpopular ones.
It was miscalculations like this that prevented him winning a majority against Gordon Brown even after the latter had steered the economy off a cliff.
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.
No, I think Hunt is that rarity amongst senior Tories, competent, intelligent and thoughtful. Which is why he is on the backbenches.
I backed the strikers because the proposals were a dogs dinner, and have simultaneously have made rostering a nightmare and proven more expensive. At least Hunt had the sense to quietly abandon contract revisions for Consultants and Speciality Doctors, recognising the Pyrrhic nature of his victory.
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?
Comments
When God was creating man he say that some were shorter than others so he made them more aggressive to compensate.
When God created Bercow he saw how aggressive he was… so made him short to limit the damage
Breaking their own law also shows that the party has changed, of course
It is flat out untrue to say that *all* viruses become less deadly. HIV is still as deadly as ever, if untreated. Polio. Measles. Ebola.
If you think there is evolutionary pressure to become less deadly, for a virus which transmits prior to symptoms, then you misunderstand evolution. Yes. There are ongoing studies into the efficacy of several cheap medications, including Ivermectin. Early studies did *not* show Ivermectin to be effective.
Did you bother to google for these basic questions before posting here? Did you check the information, from whichever misinformed website you got it from, before you swallowed it whole? Do you care whether you perpetuate lies?
No, I thought not.
--AS
Merck tried to disown Ivermectin, which it had actively commercialised and sold for decades, because it's now developing two other drugs. They'll be patented ... kerching.
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19/
The rules say that aid can be reduced for a number of reasons, including financial, and that if that happens the government needs to make a statement in Parliament explaining why. That's happened.
Hence why we aren't getting muppets like Jolyon pestering the courts about this.
It was miscalculations like this that prevented him winning a majority against Gordon Brown even after the latter had steered the economy off a cliff.
I think the phrase from Pope Leo VIII was "Absolutely null and utterly void".
Though some fudge has been put on it since.
I backed the strikers because the proposals were a dogs dinner, and have simultaneously have made rostering a nightmare and proven more expensive. At least Hunt had the sense to quietly abandon contract revisions for Consultants and Speciality Doctors, recognising the Pyrrhic nature of his victory.
Treat it like the Albert Hall - debenture holders get a certain amount of use on trade exhibitions each, whilst HRH gets 4-6 months per annum.
Model seems to work for holiday cottages.