C&A: The by-election campaign that was totally ignored by the media – politicalbetting.com

System

C&A: The by-election campaign that was totally ignored by the media – politicalbetting.com

The above chart shows party by party the vote changes that took place in last month’s Chesham and Amersham by-election compared with what happened there just 18 months earlier at GE2019. It was a sensational outcome and one that, if you look at the betting where the Tories were rated as a 95% chance even until the final week, was a bonanza for smart punters.

Read the full story here

MikeSmithson

Test

OnlyLivingBoy

Agree with this. I think the next election is going to feature some very interesting results in prosperous areas of the South. Most of the Tories I know through work are now ex Tories. Things like the "citizens of nowhere" speech went down like a bucket of cold sick on the trading floor. But the media are still engaged in their anthropological expeditions to Leaveland.

Alistair

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

LostPassword

There's an extent to which the narrative does drive the reality though, as it prevents the Lib Dems from having media time, which is what they will need if they want to broaden a by-election success in a national contest.

The aspect which links back to Starmer is the extent to which he makes it safe for centre and centre-right voters not to vote Tory, because Labour in government becomes less threatening than with Corbyn in charge. A simple 5% swing from the Tories to the Lib Dems is just enough to deprive the Tories of a formal majority (though they'd have one due to SF abstentions).

philiph

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

Complied with the letter but not the spirit of the regulations?

OnlyLivingBoy

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

One day somebody will be able to explain how it is that Johnson managed to convince so many people that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's a mystery to me.

rottenborough

Tom Whipple
@whippletom
A few things I'd be interested in thoughts on:

- You can't oppose July 19 reopening on its own. We are already on our way to a massive wave, if you don't want that then we need *more* restrictions now

- You can't be against reopening unless you are also pro vaccinating children

Maffew

I'm finding twitter pretty depressing at the moment. A large proportion of the people that I follow (for non-Covid reasons) who I generally think are very much in my political sphere are going crazy over 19th July. Constant posting about Johnson being a murderer etc. I need to keep reminding myself that twitter isn't the real world.

Cookie

FPT:

williamglenn said:

At least we seem to be immune to the Americanism “I could care less”.

David Mitchell did a very good 2 minute rant on Americanisms which don't make sense like this - 'hold down the fort' was another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

NickPalmer

LostPassword said:

There's an extent to which the narrative does drive the reality though, as it prevents the Lib Dems from having media time, which is what they will need if they want to broaden a by-election success in a national contest.

The aspect which links back to Starmer is the extent to which he makes it safe for centre and centre-right voters not to vote Tory, because Labour in government becomes less threatening than with Corbyn in charge. A simple 5% swing from the Tories to the Lib Dems is just enough to deprive the Tories of a formal majority (though they'd have one due to SF abstentions).

Anti-Tory tactical voting was very evident in both by-elections, especially C&A. That partly reflects the frankly vague ideological profile of both Labour and the LibDems - that's frustrating for those of us who are into detailed policy, but it makes it feel both safe and no big deal to vote for whichever seems the best challenger. Johnson - for more than Sunak - polarises opinion, and loads of people are now anti-Government and not fussy about which party to use to express it. Conversely party tribalism is out of fashion - I don't know many people who say they could only imagine ever voting for one party.

The media like simple narratives, and neither by-election got more than 48 hours' attention. As a result, the polls haven't shifted much.

FrancisUrquhart

rottenborough said:

Tom Whipple
@whippletom
A few things I'd be interested in thoughts on:

- You can't oppose July 19 reopening on its own. We are already on our way to a massive wave, if you don't want that then we need *more* restrictions now

- You can't be against reopening unless you are also pro vaccinating children

And Starmer has managed to take the most ridiculous position within this space.... government being too reckless, while being too restrictive...

Scott_xP

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

Apparently you can buy a Prime Minister and it doesn't matter.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnson-escapes-rap-24486178

Leon

A festive spirit in the main plaza of Soller, Majorca, last night. All of Europe was there: English (cheering), French (pouting), Germans (chuckling), Danish (weeping), Italians (pondering).

Just one nation was missing. Scotland (wanking?)

JosiasJessop

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

One day somebody will be able to explain how it is that Johnson managed to convince so many people that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's a mystery to me.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps part of it is that the people knew he was like this when he was elected. He has not spent years arguing for such rules, only to break them. It's expected (sadly). It's priced in.

Then there's the fact that his opponents often over-egg the pudding, as we see with some on here. Making Johnson out to be evil is wrong, and can be seen to be wrong.

Also, his failings are very human.

He's also different from other politicians, and he delivered something (Brexit) he promised - a task many politicians fail at. If he has to break the rules a little to get there, so what?

Now, I disagree with much of the above - but I can see how people might feel it.

Theuniondivvie

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Agree with this. I think the next election is going to feature some very interesting results in prosperous areas of the South. Most of the Tories I know through work are now ex Tories. Things like the "citizens of nowhere" speech went down like a bucket of cold sick on the trading floor. But the media are still engaged in their anthropological expeditions to Leaveland.

If the media’s journeys into darkest Jockland - Penis gourds! Cannibalism! Irn Bru! - the light shed upon and lessons learned about Leaveland will be the square root of fckall.

TimS

Morning reminder that the efficacy stats for vaccines keep being repeatedly misconstrued across the media, including by people who should know better.

This morning someone on R4 was talking about whether double-jabbed NHS staff should self-isolate. "Well even with the 2 jabs there is only 80% efficacy against Delta, which means 20% of staff are still going to pass on the virus to patients" NO! It means you're 5 times less likely to catch and pass it on than someone not vaccinated.

Then in a previous thread "AZ and Pfizer are 93% effective against hospitalisation. So that still means 7% of people who catch it are going to end up in hospital". NO! It means the risk of hospitalisation for someone vaccinated is more than 10 times lower than for someone unvaccinated.

If you are double jabbed then the chances of catching the thing are pretty low even during an epidemic as we have now. And if you do catch it, the chance of ending up in hospital is miniscule. As for the risk of dying, if you are in reasonable health and middle age or younger, it's virtually non-existent.

Anabobazina

Leon said:

A festive spirit in the main plaza of Soller, Majorca, last night. All of Europe was there: English (cheering), French (pouting), Germans (chuckling), Danish (weeping), Italians (pondering).

Just one nation was missing. Scotland (wanking?)

I like the ‘pouting’ French - ha ha!

https://www.vogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/20/02-lea-seydoux-hats-angelo-pennetta-vogue.jpg

Leon

One for @TSE

"British Muslim students from an Islamic seminary watching the #ENG game when
@HKane scored. This is the #eng we are part from which some people lead us to believe isn’t possible, it is and the racists can do one"

https://twitter.com/Hasanpatel/status/1412912628142415877?s=20

TimS

Maffew said:

I'm finding twitter pretty depressing at the moment. A large proportion of the people that I follow (for non-Covid reasons) who I generally think are very much in my political sphere are going crazy over 19th July. Constant posting about Johnson being a murderer etc. I need to keep reminding myself that twitter isn't the real world.

Tell me about it. People I assumed shared my worldview turn out to be puritanical zealots whose loathing of this government, understandable as it may be in many ways, has sent them loopy.

Anabobazina

TimS said:

Morning reminder that the efficacy stats for vaccines keep being repeatedly misconstrued across the media, including by people who should know better.

This morning someone on R4 was talking about whether double-jabbed NHS staff should self-isolate. "Well even with the 2 jabs there is only 80% efficacy against Delta, which means 20% of staff are still going to pass on the virus to patients" NO! It means you're 5 times less likely to catch and pass it on than someone not vaccinated.

Then in a previous thread "AZ and Pfizer are 93% effective against hospitalisation. So that still means 7% of people who catch it are going to end up in hospital". NO! It means the risk of hospitalisation for someone vaccinated is more than 10 times lower than for someone unvaccinated.

If you are double jabbed then the chances of catching the thing are pretty low even during an epidemic as we have now. And if you do catch it, the chance of ending up in hospital is miniscule. As for the risk of dying, if you are in reasonable health and middle age or younger, it's virtually non-existent.

The only mainstream telly journalist who should be allowed to speak about efficacy and conditional probabilities is Nick Triggle of the BBC. Sadly he all too rarely gets airtime, as the Beeb prefer innumerate attention seekers.

FrancisUrquhart

TimS said:

Morning reminder that the efficacy stats for vaccines keep being repeatedly misconstrued across the media, including by people who should know better.

This morning someone on R4 was talking about whether double-jabbed NHS staff should self-isolate. "Well even with the 2 jabs there is only 80% efficacy against Delta, which means 20% of staff are still going to pass on the virus to patients" NO! It means you're 5 times less likely to catch and pass it on than someone not vaccinated.

Then in a previous thread "AZ and Pfizer are 93% effective against hospitalisation. So that still means 7% of people who catch it are going to end up in hospital". NO! It means the risk of hospitalisation for someone vaccinated is more than 10 times lower than for someone unvaccinated.

If you are double jabbed then the chances of catching the thing are pretty low even during an epidemic as we have now. And if you do catch it, the chance of ending up in hospital is miniscule. As for the risk of dying, if you are in reasonable health and middle age or younger, it's virtually non-existent.

This this the new "cases / deaths from today" of last year when there at the time significant delays and back filling going on (in an inconsistent way)...and of course the media still struggle with differences in reporting day.

TOPPING

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Now that the 100k new cases a day figure has emerged, are we expecting any polling on how the people of England feel about that? I am discounting the strident UNLOCK NOW IT IS RISK FREE voices on here as I suspect you aren't representative.

Ordinarily, football or not, the superspreader events in pubs across the country for the fitba would have been something people would avoid like the plague. Perhaps Monday's pre-announcement that they will make a decision next Monday as to whether to allow the following Monday what is already happening was there specifically to give people permission to bin the restrictions now.

As the plan is let her rip, may as well get on with it.

We're fine. Thanks for asking. We'll make our own minds up.

Wasn't asking you love. Was asking about the people not posting RISK FREE slogans on here.

Who is saying it's risk free, duckie?

FrancisUrquhart

Anabobazina said:

TimS said:

Morning reminder that the efficacy stats for vaccines keep being repeatedly misconstrued across the media, including by people who should know better.

This morning someone on R4 was talking about whether double-jabbed NHS staff should self-isolate. "Well even with the 2 jabs there is only 80% efficacy against Delta, which means 20% of staff are still going to pass on the virus to patients" NO! It means you're 5 times less likely to catch and pass it on than someone not vaccinated.

Then in a previous thread "AZ and Pfizer are 93% effective against hospitalisation. So that still means 7% of people who catch it are going to end up in hospital". NO! It means the risk of hospitalisation for someone vaccinated is more than 10 times lower than for someone unvaccinated.

If you are double jabbed then the chances of catching the thing are pretty low even during an epidemic as we have now. And if you do catch it, the chance of ending up in hospital is miniscule. As for the risk of dying, if you are in reasonable health and middle age or younger, it's virtually non-existent.

The only mainstream telly journalist who should be allowed to speak about efficacy and conditional probabilities is Nick Triggle of the BBC. Sadly he all too rarely gets airtime, as the Beeb prefer innumerate attention seekers.

It also shows how little reading / learning about a subject too many of these people do. This really isn't that hard to understand. You don't need a PhD in stats to NOT say what is commonly been said.

rottenborough

FrancisUrquhart said:

TimS said:

Morning reminder that the efficacy stats for vaccines keep being repeatedly misconstrued across the media, including by people who should know better.

This morning someone on R4 was talking about whether double-jabbed NHS staff should self-isolate. "Well even with the 2 jabs there is only 80% efficacy against Delta, which means 20% of staff are still going to pass on the virus to patients" NO! It means you're 5 times less likely to catch and pass it on than someone not vaccinated.

Then in a previous thread "AZ and Pfizer are 93% effective against hospitalisation. So that still means 7% of people who catch it are going to end up in hospital". NO! It means the risk of hospitalisation for someone vaccinated is more than 10 times lower than for someone unvaccinated.

If you are double jabbed then the chances of catching the thing are pretty low even during an epidemic as we have now. And if you do catch it, the chance of ending up in hospital is miniscule. As for the risk of dying, if you are in reasonable health and middle age or younger, it's virtually non-existent.

This this the new "cases / deaths from today" of last year when there at the time significant delays and back filling going on (in an inconsistent way)...and of course the media still struggle with differences in reporting day.

Quick guide to what vaccine efficiency actually means:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

Leon

Of all the ways to express dissatisfaction with government Covid-19 policy, the one I wouldn't go with, in the current context, is "a letter to The Lancet"


"We just published a letter in the Lancet signed by over 100 scientists explaining why a policy that allows mass infection should not be an option. "

Yes, it is Christina Pagel

https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1412905171798142983?s=20

Alistair

philiph said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

Complied with the letter but not the spirit of the regulations?

Failed to do any of the things that you would expect someone to do in that situation but not in a provably malicious way.

rottenborough

TimS said:

Maffew said:

I'm finding twitter pretty depressing at the moment. A large proportion of the people that I follow (for non-Covid reasons) who I generally think are very much in my political sphere are going crazy over 19th July. Constant posting about Johnson being a murderer etc. I need to keep reminding myself that twitter isn't the real world.

Tell me about it. People I assumed shared my worldview turn out to be puritanical zealots whose loathing of this government, understandable as it may be in many ways, has sent them loopy.

One wonders whether these people shouting "murderer" are taking advantage of the looser restrictions as they currently stand.

Because every single case we have now has happened under the current restrictions. The surge is already here. As was always planned and modelled for.

FrancisUrquhart

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

Cicero

The political-media complex has been abject in its failure, both in the "U"K and also in the USA, The fact of so many "journalists" (really Op/Ed polemicists) being so fully invested in their own, mostly Tory, political brand has removed essential objectivity. Then there is the arrogance of those columnists who beleive they can make their own weather (looking at you, Andrew Neil). The result is a cacophony of prejudiced, strident but not particularly original political thinking.

The irony is that leading journalists are largely well educated and wealthy (and often privately educated) but they have signally failed to understand that is precisely this social group that is swinging en masse away from the Tories. The absolute contempt that many dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives now have for Johnson and the bunch of third raters in his cabinet is quite astonishing.

The pathetic whining from the leavers like Redwood is as big a turn off as banning Perrier for no particular reason. I think the rage of the scorned Middle Class will be terrible to behold (if you are a Tory). And its coming soon to a Home County near you.

rottenborough

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

Tom Whipple
@whippletom
A few things I'd be interested in thoughts on:

- You can't oppose July 19 reopening on its own. We are already on our way to a massive wave, if you don't want that then we need *more* restrictions now

- You can't be against reopening unless you are also pro vaccinating children

And Starmer has managed to take the most ridiculous position within this space.... government being too reckless, while being too restrictive...

I can think of six impossible things before breakfast.

algarkirk

Interesting article - thank you. Nothing about C&A took me by surprise. Orpington onwards made it likely, and I made a few bob. Nothing about it OTOH tells us anything about the next GE or any wider considerations. Orpington onwards teaches the same lesson.

There is as yet no significant evidence from GE polling showing a change. Tories consistently above 40, Lab below mid 30s; little change in recent weeks. About 42/34 and not even any outliers recently.

northern_monkey

I appear to have got some dust in my eye...

https://twitter.com/BBCMOTD/status/1413022953344847878?s=20

fox327

TimS said:

Morning reminder that the efficacy stats for vaccines keep being repeatedly misconstrued across the media, including by people who should know better.

This morning someone on R4 was talking about whether double-jabbed NHS staff should self-isolate. "Well even with the 2 jabs there is only 80% efficacy against Delta, which means 20% of staff are still going to pass on the virus to patients" NO! It means you're 5 times less likely to catch and pass it on than someone not vaccinated.

Then in a previous thread "AZ and Pfizer are 93% effective against hospitalisation. So that still means 7% of people who catch it are going to end up in hospital". NO! It means the risk of hospitalisation for someone vaccinated is more than 10 times lower than for someone unvaccinated.

If you are double jabbed then the chances of catching the thing are pretty low even during an epidemic as we have now. And if you do catch it, the chance of ending up in hospital is miniscule. As for the risk of dying, if you are in reasonable health and middle age or younger, it's virtually non-existent.

Many of the people who appear to be innumerate, stupid or lying, are in fact lying. They are innumerate when it suits them.

kjh

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

Gardenwalker

Leon said:

One for @TSE

"British Muslim students from an Islamic seminary watching the #ENG game when
@HKane scored. This is the #eng we are part from which some people lead us to believe isn’t possible, it is and the racists can do one"

https://twitter.com/Hasanpatel/status/1412912628142415877?s=20

As a hardcore anti-Johnson “Remoaner”, non English, pro-Union, NZer with no interest in football, it’s hard to know what my consistent position is supposed to be on this Euro thing.

Normally I support “anyone but England” (except South Africa) and I don’t want Johnson milking a historic sporting win.

But the team just seem so unlike regular English teams, and the sheer joy in the land is intoxicating, so what choice do I have but to support them?

Big_G_NorthWales

northern_monkey said:

I appear to have got some dust in my eye...

https://twitter.com/BBCMOTD/status/1413022953344847878?s=20

Beautiful moment

JosiasJessop

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

Theuniondivvie

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

kinabalu

JosiasJessop said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

One day somebody will be able to explain how it is that Johnson managed to convince so many people that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's a mystery to me.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps part of it is that the people knew he was like this when he was elected. He has not spent years arguing for such rules, only to break them. It's expected (sadly). It's priced in.

Then there's the fact that his opponents often over-egg the pudding, as we see with some on here. Making Johnson out to be evil is wrong, and can be seen to be wrong.

Also, his failings are very human.

He's also different from other politicians, and he delivered something (Brexit) he promised - a task many politicians fail at. If he has to break the rules a little to get there, so what?

Now, I disagree with much of the above - but I can see how people might feel it.

Yes to all of that. And there's a class angle too. The insouciant toff who floats above the hard sweepings of workaday life. It's 'born to rule' entitlement at play here - pure and simple - but Johnson manages to do it in a way that elicits amusement and applause. The working class people sucked into his brand probably don't realize they are succumbing to class deference but I can assure them they are.

Scott_xP

Japan PM Suga declares state of COVID-19 emergency in Tokyo http://reut.rs/3hqZxWK https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1413062817553518593/photo/1

TOPPING

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

Well as you of course are aware, a straight person, coming out as straight and then going home on the tube hand in hand with their partner is a whole different proposition to what a non-straight person would face in the same situation.

Walking back from the pub last night, I can only imagine what the reaction would have been from some (only some, mind) of the cheering mobs had I been hand in hand with some bloke instead of the sad old git on my own which was the reality.

Is why I'm sure the gay footballers would rather keep their sexuality to themselves. Which is a shame.

Gardenwalker

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

Yes, Trump was a malign and unignorable presence, like a rabid dog chained up in the back garden.

Johnson, too, to a lesser extent. It will be a red letter day when he goes.

Cookie

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

But the reaction of gay people coming out as gay, appears to rank from "obviously" to "who cares" to "hooray!" (Philip Schofield, Gareth Thomas). I can't remember any negative reactions to it this century. It ranges from indifference to acceptance to celebration.
I'm no expert, being boringly straight, but we appear to be there already.

It could, conceivably, be that gay people don't tend to get involved in team sports because the absence of gay people in team sports leads them to think it isn't for them. i.e. it's self-fulfilling. But it does genuinely seem that there are far fewer gay people in team sports than you would expect by chance.

Gardenwalker

I see Johnson was found in breach of the rules by the actual investigation and report, but “not guilty” by a committee of MPs.

Cool, cool.

Just another little slip towards Berlusconi Island.

Scott_xP

A laser pen was pointed at Denmark goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel’s eyes as he faced down the extra-time penalty against Harry Kane last night

The revelation is likely to add to the controversy surrounding England’s win https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/england-fans-shine-laser-pen-in-kasper-schmeichels-eyes-during-penalty-wmz6jhtcf?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1625734655

Foxy

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

I suspect that being an out gay footballer would be met with a shrug, and little more than a bit of shower banter from the players. Times have moved on.

Fans too, where Pride events, flags etc go unremarked in crowds, indeed after one Leicester match the season before last, much of the crowd drifted up to Vicky Park for Leicester Pride to party into the night.

tlg86

Scott_xP said:

A laser pen was pointed at Denmark goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel’s eyes as he faced down the extra-time penalty against Harry Kane last night

The revelation is likely to add to the controversy surrounding England’s win https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/england-fans-shine-laser-pen-in-kasper-schmeichels-eyes-during-penalty-wmz6jhtcf?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1625734655

Didn't stop him saving the penalty.

Theuniondivvie

What first attracted you to the amoral, complicit scumbag that never takes responsibility for anything?

Scott_xP

Could be the day Cavendish equals Merck’s record, but could be - by sound of the wind outside - echelon chaos. Organisers have delayed start by 10min on account of it.
Weather prediction: “Northerly 30kph gusts, up to 60kph at the beginning, decreasing 15-20kph…” #tdf2021 🌬
https://twitter.com/SophieSmith86/status/1413067908599668737

ClippP

Gardenwalker said:

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

Yes, Trump was a malign and unignorable presence, like a rabid dog chained up in the back garden.

Johnson, too, to a lesser extent. It will be a red letter day when he goes.

When Johnson goes, we can celebrate a very real Freedom Day.

Stark_Dawning

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

That guy seems to rival James Cordon in light-entertainment ubiquity. But does anyone actually like him? I've never known of anyone who does. (I'm referring to McGuinness in this instance.)

williamglenn

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

One day somebody will be able to explain how it is that Johnson managed to convince so many people that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's a mystery to me.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps part of it is that the people knew he was like this when he was elected. He has not spent years arguing for such rules, only to break them. It's expected (sadly). It's priced in.

Then there's the fact that his opponents often over-egg the pudding, as we see with some on here. Making Johnson out to be evil is wrong, and can be seen to be wrong.

Also, his failings are very human.

He's also different from other politicians, and he delivered something (Brexit) he promised - a task many politicians fail at. If he has to break the rules a little to get there, so what?

Now, I disagree with much of the above - but I can see how people might feel it.

Yes to all of that. And there's a class angle too. The insouciant toff who floats above the hard sweepings of workaday life. It's 'born to rule' entitlement at play here - pure and simple - but Johnson manages to do it in a way that elicits amusement and applause. The working class people sucked into his brand probably don't realize they are succumbing to class deference but I can assure them they are.

"The working class people sucked into his brand probably don't realize they should look up to those who are not but I can assure them they should."

Sandpit

Stark_Dawning said:

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

That guy seems to rival James Cordon in light-entertainment ubiquity. But does anyone actually like him? I've never known of anyone who does. (I'm referring to McGuinness in this instance.)

He’s the annoying one on Top Gear, isn’t he?

kjh

Cookie said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

But the reaction of gay people coming out as gay, appears to rank from "obviously" to "who cares" to "hooray!" (Philip Schofield, Gareth Thomas). I can't remember any negative reactions to it this century. It ranges from indifference to acceptance to celebration.
I'm no expert, being boringly straight, but we appear to be there already.

It could, conceivably, be that gay people don't tend to get involved in team sports because the absence of gay people in team sports leads them to think it isn't for them. i.e. it's self-fulfilling. But it does genuinely seem that there are far fewer gay people in team sports than you would expect by chance.

See Toppings reply to me which I think is an excellent example.

I don't think it is conceivable that there appear to be practically no gay footballers. It may be smaller than the number of gay actors, may even be considerably smaller, but practically none?

LostPassword

rottenborough said:

TimS said:

Maffew said:

I'm finding twitter pretty depressing at the moment. A large proportion of the people that I follow (for non-Covid reasons) who I generally think are very much in my political sphere are going crazy over 19th July. Constant posting about Johnson being a murderer etc. I need to keep reminding myself that twitter isn't the real world.

Tell me about it. People I assumed shared my worldview turn out to be puritanical zealots whose loathing of this government, understandable as it may be in many ways, has sent them loopy.

One wonders whether these people shouting "murderer" are taking advantage of the looser restrictions as they currently stand.

Because every single case we have now has happened under the current restrictions. The surge is already here. As was always planned and modelled for.

It's very noticeable when they do, but I'd be wary of the people who are noticeable being representative - my wife is a counter-example of someone being much more cautious than allowed and regarding the current government of being guilty of reckless endangerment at least.

But I do have a couple of examples on my Facebook of people out and about enjoying themselves (and why not) simultaneously complaining that the government is allowing them to go out and enjoy themselves (seems a bit weird).

The masks are acting a bit like recycling does for a certain demographic. "I wear my mask properly, unlike those people who have their noses hanging out, so my choices in socialising, etc, have nothing to do with the increase in cases," is a bit like, "I recycle all my yogurt pots, even when I'm taking a break after flying to my second home in France," is for some people on climate change.

kjh

kjh said:

Cookie said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

But the reaction of gay people coming out as gay, appears to rank from "obviously" to "who cares" to "hooray!" (Philip Schofield, Gareth Thomas). I can't remember any negative reactions to it this century. It ranges from indifference to acceptance to celebration.
I'm no expert, being boringly straight, but we appear to be there already.

It could, conceivably, be that gay people don't tend to get involved in team sports because the absence of gay people in team sports leads them to think it isn't for them. i.e. it's self-fulfilling. But it does genuinely seem that there are far fewer gay people in team sports than you would expect by chance.

See Toppings reply to me which I think is an excellent example.

I don't think it is conceivable that there appear to be practically no gay footballers. It may be smaller than the number of gay actors, may even be considerably small, but practically none?

I have realised I have practically gone from 'it is none of my business whether a footballer is gay so shouldn't have to come out' to wanting them all to come out immediately to make my point.

TOPPING

Stark_Dawning said:

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

That guy seems to rival James Cordon in light-entertainment ubiquity. But does anyone actually like him? I've never known of anyone who does. (I'm referring to McGuinness in this instance.)

Corden at least has the self-awareness to know that he for a time, perhaps even now, said yes to everything.

His performance at the National of The History Boys and later in One Man Two Guv'nors forgives 98.4% of his twattery.

Nigel_Foremain

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

One day somebody will be able to explain how it is that Johnson managed to convince so many people that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's a mystery to me.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps part of it is that the people knew he was like this when he was elected. He has not spent years arguing for such rules, only to break them. It's expected (sadly). It's priced in.

Then there's the fact that his opponents often over-egg the pudding, as we see with some on here. Making Johnson out to be evil is wrong, and can be seen to be wrong.

Also, his failings are very human.

He's also different from other politicians, and he delivered something (Brexit) he promised - a task many politicians fail at. If he has to break the rules a little to get there, so what?

Now, I disagree with much of the above - but I can see how people might feel it.

Yes to all of that. And there's a class angle too. The insouciant toff who floats above the hard sweepings of workaday life. It's 'born to rule' entitlement at play here - pure and simple - but Johnson manages to do it in a way that elicits amusement and applause. The working class people sucked into his brand probably don't realize they are succumbing to class deference but I can assure them they are.

I have come to the conclusion that there is a large section of the so-called working class person that has no problem with such deference. If not, why would the Royal Family be so popular (and I don't mean the TV show!)?

Roger

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

You make a very good point. For us in the UK though the malignity is only half removed. If Johnson had followed his mentor I'm sure the Brexit divisiveness might also disappear

Theuniondivvie

Sandpit said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

That guy seems to rival James Cordon in light-entertainment ubiquity. But does anyone actually like him? I've never known of anyone who does. (I'm referring to McGuinness in this instance.)

He’s the annoying one on Top Gear, isn’t he?

You’ll have to narrow that down a bit..

Nigel_Foremain

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

That guy seems to rival James Cordon in light-entertainment ubiquity. But does anyone actually like him? I've never known of anyone who does. (I'm referring to McGuinness in this instance.)

Corden at least has the self-awareness to know that he for a time, perhaps even now, said yes to everything.

His performance at the National of The History Boys and later in One Man Two Guv'nors forgives 98.4% of his twattery.

He has what I would think the Germans would call a backpfeifengesicht.

kjh

Scott_xP said:

Could be the day Cavendish equals Merck’s record, but could be - by sound of the wind outside - echelon chaos. Organisers have delayed start by 10min on account of it.
Weather prediction: “Northerly 30kph gusts, up to 60kph at the beginning, decreasing 15-20kph…” #tdf2021 🌬
https://twitter.com/SophieSmith86/status/1413067908599668737

He is good at spotting this stuff though so if he gets in the first echelon it could make his task easier.

Scott_xP

Dido Harding:
"I do appreciate a lot of people listening to this might find this rather incredulous given some of the way it's bn reported, but I wd actually argue that NHS Test + Trace has been success..it has delivered on the objective to help break the chains of transmission"
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1413070768276135937

Scott_xP

kjh said:

He is good at spotting this stuff though so if he gets in the first echelon it could make his task easier.

And the rest of his team are pretty special this year.

I watched the World Championship madison with him and Wiggo again this morning.

He's a machine...

Gardenwalker

This deference stuff is tosh.

The “working class” like Boris because he is a “cheeky” rule-breaker who cuts through the cant and “gets things done”.

Until critics figure that out; and figure ways to either undermine Boris’s reputation and/or demonstrate the impact of his lazy, faithless indecision, then Boris will keep playing bunga-bunga with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s granddaughter and forgetting to turn up to COBRA.

kjh

Foxy said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

I suspect that being an out gay footballer would be met with a shrug, and little more than a bit of shower banter from the players. Times have moved on.

Fans too, where Pride events, flags etc go unremarked in crowds, indeed after one Leicester match the season before last, much of the crowd drifted up to Vicky Park for Leicester Pride to party into the night.

I agree with that, but there is still a minority. It isn't long ago (and still?) that racisim was a big issue in football crowds. I am sure that was a minority. Thankfully a reducing minority.

ClippP

NickPalmer said:

LostPassword said:

There's an extent to which the narrative does drive the reality though, as it prevents the Lib Dems from having media time, which is what they will need if they want to broaden a by-election success in a national contest.

The aspect which links back to Starmer is the extent to which he makes it safe for centre and centre-right voters not to vote Tory, because Labour in government becomes less threatening than with Corbyn in charge. A simple 5% swing from the Tories to the Lib Dems is just enough to deprive the Tories of a formal majority (though they'd have one due to SF abstentions).

Anti-Tory tactical voting was very evident in both by-elections, especially C&A. That partly reflects the frankly vague ideological profile of both Labour and the LibDems - that's frustrating for those of us who are into detailed policy, but it makes it feel both safe and no big deal to vote for whichever seems the best challenger. Johnson - for more than Sunak - polarises opinion, and loads of people are now anti-Government and not fussy about which party to use to express it. Conversely party tribalism is out of fashion - I don't know many people who say they could only imagine ever voting for one party.

The media like simple narratives, and neither by-election got more than 48 hours' attention. As a result, the polls haven't shifted much.

Of course there was tactical anti-Tory voting, Mr Palmer. But in C&A there was also an incredible number of traditional Conservative voters who were voting against the Johnson government. I don't think their feelings would have been strong enough for them ever to vote Labour though.

That is Labour's problem though. They can either be Socialist and authoritarian, or they can be Liberal-light. But they cannot be both at once and stay in one piece.

JosiasJessop

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

You make a very good point. For us in the UK though the malignity is only half removed. If Johnson had followed his mentor I'm sure the Brexit divisiveness might also disappear

I have to disagree on this. Johnson is no Trump.

For one thing, Trump was the ultimate political outsider: he had associated with politicians in the past, but only to use them for his own ends. Johnson has served as an MP, mayor of our capital for eight years, then as an MP again, before he became PM. He is a political animal. Trump was not; oddly, that was part of his appeal.

I understand you hate both of them, but that does not mean they're the same. I think in temperament and character they're significantly different, although there are similarities.

JosiasJessop

Am I the only person on here who sees 'COBRA' and automatically thinks about CORBA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Object_Request_Broker_Architecture

Gardenwalker

People like Boris for the same reason I like my two year old son when he has made a mess in the kitchen.

The Labour Party need to look at psychology if they want to find an angle.

I do recall @TSE noting that “one rule for them” seems to cut through. Also, remember when Boris was rattled and angry last year at PMQs? I can’t remember Keir’s line of questioning but whatever it was they need to do more of that.

alex_

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

You make a very good point. For us in the UK though the malignity is only half removed. If Johnson had followed his mentor I'm sure the Brexit divisiveness might also disappear

Have France chucked you out?

williamglenn

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

You make a very good point. For us in the UK though the malignity is only half removed. If Johnson had followed his mentor I'm sure the Brexit divisiveness might also disappear

I have to disagree on this. Johnson is no Trump.

For one thing, Trump was the ultimate political outsider: he had associated with politicians in the past, but only to use them for his own ends. Johnson has served as an MP, mayor of our capital for eight years, then as an MP again, before he became PM. He is a political animal. Trump was not; oddly, that was part of his appeal.

I understand you hate both of them, but that does not mean they're the same. I think in temperament and character they're significantly different, although there are similarities.

Also how can the Brexit divisiveness disappear without tacitly giving Johnson some political credit for delivering it?

kinabalu

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

One day somebody will be able to explain how it is that Johnson managed to convince so many people that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's a mystery to me.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps part of it is that the people knew he was like this when he was elected. He has not spent years arguing for such rules, only to break them. It's expected (sadly). It's priced in.

Then there's the fact that his opponents often over-egg the pudding, as we see with some on here. Making Johnson out to be evil is wrong, and can be seen to be wrong.

Also, his failings are very human.

He's also different from other politicians, and he delivered something (Brexit) he promised - a task many politicians fail at. If he has to break the rules a little to get there, so what?

Now, I disagree with much of the above - but I can see how people might feel it.

Yes to all of that. And there's a class angle too. The insouciant toff who floats above the hard sweepings of workaday life. It's 'born to rule' entitlement at play here - pure and simple - but Johnson manages to do it in a way that elicits amusement and applause. The working class people sucked into his brand probably don't realize they are succumbing to class deference but I can assure them they are.

"The working class people sucked into his brand probably don't realize they should look up to those who are not but I can assure them they should."

Not look up to - although it would be nice.

Listen to and have a think about it.

OnlyLivingBoy

Stark_Dawning said:

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

That guy seems to rival James Cordon in light-entertainment ubiquity. But does anyone actually like him? I've never known of anyone who does. (I'm referring to McGuinness in this instance.)

I like him. Used to watch Take Me Out religiously. A very genial host, with a quick sense of humour and genuine warmth. I quite like James Corden too, but I'm biased because I saw him on stage in One Man Two Guvnors and his performance was the funniest thing I have ever seen.

rottenborough

If anyone wants to make their hangover worse, iSage are running an online press conference on the coming disaster:

https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1412905171798142983

Gardenwalker

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

You make a very good point. For us in the UK though the malignity is only half removed. If Johnson had followed his mentor I'm sure the Brexit divisiveness might also disappear

I have to disagree on this. Johnson is no Trump.

For one thing, Trump was the ultimate political outsider: he had associated with politicians in the past, but only to use them for his own ends. Johnson has served as an MP, mayor of our capital for eight years, then as an MP again, before he became PM. He is a political animal. Trump was not; oddly, that was part of his appeal.

I understand you hate both of them, but that does not mean they're the same. I think in temperament and character they're significantly different, although there are similarities.

Also how can the Brexit divisiveness disappear without tacitly giving Johnson some political credit for delivering it?

Interesting idea; and another angle for Labour.

“Johnson won the war, but is not the right man for the peace.”

kinabalu

Nigel_Foremain said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

One day somebody will be able to explain how it is that Johnson managed to convince so many people that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's a mystery to me.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps part of it is that the people knew he was like this when he was elected. He has not spent years arguing for such rules, only to break them. It's expected (sadly). It's priced in.

Then there's the fact that his opponents often over-egg the pudding, as we see with some on here. Making Johnson out to be evil is wrong, and can be seen to be wrong.

Also, his failings are very human.

He's also different from other politicians, and he delivered something (Brexit) he promised - a task many politicians fail at. If he has to break the rules a little to get there, so what?

Now, I disagree with much of the above - but I can see how people might feel it.

Yes to all of that. And there's a class angle too. The insouciant toff who floats above the hard sweepings of workaday life. It's 'born to rule' entitlement at play here - pure and simple - but Johnson manages to do it in a way that elicits amusement and applause. The working class people sucked into his brand probably don't realize they are succumbing to class deference but I can assure them they are.

I have come to the conclusion that there is a large section of the so-called working class person that has no problem with such deference. If not, why would the Royal Family be so popular (and I don't mean the TV show!)?

Yes. You can debate to what degree class deference is in the mix (re Johnson, re the Royals) but it certainly is in the mix. Not a comfortable thought for many - those who like to think class is no longer of great relevance in England in 2021 - but it's best recognized imo.

Sandpit

Theuniondivvie said:

Sandpit said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

That guy seems to rival James Cordon in light-entertainment ubiquity. But does anyone actually like him? I've never known of anyone who does. (I'm referring to McGuinness in this instance.)

He’s the annoying one on Top Gear, isn’t he?

You’ll have to narrow that down a bit..

Ha! Yes, he was the twunt I was thinking of.

I actually don’t mind Flintoff, at least he’s achieved something in his life and has a decent sense of humour. Paddy is just annoying though.

I do find it amusing that they went through so many iterations of presenters, then decided that only one of the three needed to have any experience as an automotive journalist.

TOPPING

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC News - Paddy McGuinness replaces Sue Barker as A Question of Sport host
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57761226

Christ he must have a good agent.

It's not even like Sue Barker was the worst thing about QoS

That guy seems to rival James Cordon in light-entertainment ubiquity. But does anyone actually like him? I've never known of anyone who does. (I'm referring to McGuinness in this instance.)

I like him. Used to watch Take Me Out religiously. A very genial host, with a quick sense of humour and genuine warmth. I quite like James Corden too, but I'm biased because I saw him on stage in One Man Two Guvnors and his performance was the funniest thing I have ever seen.

*SPOILERS*

I was crying with laughter. Saw it twice, in fact. Only slightly disappointed to find out that the hummous gag was scripted...

Philip_Thompson

Foxy said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

I suspect that being an out gay footballer would be met with a shrug, and little more than a bit of shower banter from the players. Times have moved on.

Fans too, where Pride events, flags etc go unremarked in crowds, indeed after one Leicester match the season before last, much of the crowd drifted up to Vicky Park for Leicester Pride to party into the night.

Its remarkable how fast the attitude towards LGB people has transformed. In the space of a generation its completely changed and now its basically embarrassing if anyone has an issue with them. Its really a change for the better.

I left the T off deliberately as the awkward collission between T rights and Women's Rights is an unresolved issue.

Theuniondivvie

Fpt

Carnyx said:

Excellent spot re EVEL, Stuart.

I wondered if it was to make sure that the Tories could draw on all their MPs for future contentious English-only legislation, given that the SNP and IIRC also PC normally recuse themselves from such things, Barnett consequentials and suchlike apart.

But that doesn't make much sense given current numbers and that it would also allow LDs, SLAB, Llafur, and revenge-bent DUP to vote.

I'm wondering if there are two factors we are missing -

1. Could be to remove a power of the Speaker and return it to Mr R-M's party position.
2. Could be to neuter the obvious rebuttal to Tory election propaganda about how a Starmer-Sturgeon coalition would lead to the Scots ruling England, cue hysteria and brown golf trousers from Epping to Camborne ...

It's certainly the logical (sic) conclusion of the HYUFD-esque belief in in the absolute supremacy of Westminster regardless of the democratic consent of the peoples of the constituent nations (and all the fitbaw hysteria reminds us that we are separate nations) of the UK.
As I recall EVEL has been pretty loosely interpreted in any case, with SCon mps doing their bit when required, even when their Holyrood colleagues have made contrary noises for viewers in Scotland. Not that inconsistency in logic and principle have ever been a problem for that lot.

IshmaelZ

kinabalu said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

One day somebody will be able to explain how it is that Johnson managed to convince so many people that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's a mystery to me.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps part of it is that the people knew he was like this when he was elected. He has not spent years arguing for such rules, only to break them. It's expected (sadly). It's priced in.

Then there's the fact that his opponents often over-egg the pudding, as we see with some on here. Making Johnson out to be evil is wrong, and can be seen to be wrong.

Also, his failings are very human.

He's also different from other politicians, and he delivered something (Brexit) he promised - a task many politicians fail at. If he has to break the rules a little to get there, so what?

Now, I disagree with much of the above - but I can see how people might feel it.

Yes to all of that. And there's a class angle too. The insouciant toff who floats above the hard sweepings of workaday life. It's 'born to rule' entitlement at play here - pure and simple - but Johnson manages to do it in a way that elicits amusement and applause. The working class people sucked into his brand probably don't realize they are succumbing to class deference but I can assure them they are.

I have come to the conclusion that there is a large section of the so-called working class person that has no problem with such deference. If not, why would the Royal Family be so popular (and I don't mean the TV show!)?

Yes. You can debate to what degree class deference is in the mix (re Johnson, re the Royals) but it certainly is in the mix. Not a comfortable thought for many - those who like to think class is no longer of great relevance in England in 2021 - but it's best recognized imo.

I think the appeal is classless, the attraction is to People Who Get On Telly. Johnson may have Eton in his background, but it's more about hIGNFY (my uppercase h is broken) but he might have done equally well if he'd risen through the ranks through Love Island, or professional football. People don't get much mileage out of merely being the 16th marquess of somewhere any longer.

Scott_xP

williamglenn said:

Also how can the Brexit divisiveness disappear without tacitly giving Johnson some political credit for delivering it?

I am prepared to give BoZo 100% of the political credit for delivering Brexit divisiveness

Roger

Theuniondivvie said:

What first attracted you to the amoral, complicit scumbag that never takes responsibility for anything?

Isn't Petronella mother to one of the Boris Babies? I don't ask out of prurient curiosity but for the possibility it might embroil him in the Epstein affair which would be great news. If Cummings doesn't get him that might open a second front

RochdalePioneers

Scott_xP said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

Apparently you can buy a Prime Minister and it doesn't matter.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnson-escapes-rap-24486178

Standards Commissioner - you have broken the code of conduct
MPs - no he hasn't (phew!)

Its the same nonsense as Patel and Hancock being found breaking the ministerial code and then the PM saying no they haven't. Or the forthcoming investigation into wallpaper-gate where they will find the PM guilty of breaking the ministerial code and then the PM will say no I haven't.

Once upon a time there used to be a Conservative Party who believed in standards, decency and the rule of law. Wherever did they go, and when the party post-Johnson painfully has to rebuild public trust in these basics will they come back?

Sandpit

Theuniondivvie said:

Fpt

Carnyx said:

Excellent spot re EVEL, Stuart.

I wondered if it was to make sure that the Tories could draw on all their MPs for future contentious English-only legislation, given that the SNP and IIRC also PC normally recuse themselves from such things, Barnett consequentials and suchlike apart.

But that doesn't make much sense given current numbers and that it would also allow LDs, SLAB, Llafur, and revenge-bent DUP to vote.

I'm wondering if there are two factors we are missing -

1. Could be to remove a power of the Speaker and return it to Mr R-M's party position.
2. Could be to neuter the obvious rebuttal to Tory election propaganda about how a Starmer-Sturgeon coalition would lead to the Scots ruling England, cue hysteria and brown golf trousers from Epping to Camborne ...

It's certainly the logical (sic) conclusion of the HYUFD-esque belief in in the absolute supremacy of Westminster regardless of the democratic consent of the peoples of the constituent nations (and all the fitbaw hysteria reminds us that we are separate nations) of the UK.
As I recall EVEL has been pretty loosely interpreted in any case, with SCon mps doing their bit when required, even when their Holyrood colleagues have made contrary noises for viewers in Scotland. Not that inconsistency in logic and principle have ever been a problem for that lot.

At this point, pretty much all solutions involve a separate English Parliament, with the same powers devolved to all four states, and the UK Parliament legislating only on foreign affairs and defence.

Blair’s asymmetric devolution simply doesn’t work, and is the cause of tensions which need not exist.

IshmaelZ

Roger said:

Theuniondivvie said:

What first attracted you to the amoral, complicit scumbag that never takes responsibility for anything?

Isn't Petronella mother to one of the Boris Babies? I don't ask out of prurient curiosity but for the possibility it might embroil him in the Epstein affair which would be great news. If Cummings doesn't get him that might open a second front

I'm just trying to think of all the other very grave offences which can be waved away with "yes, that was curiously tin-eared of me, your honour."

algarkirk

Scott_xP said:

Dido Harding:
"I do appreciate a lot of people listening to this might find this rather incredulous given some of the way it's bn reported, but I wd actually argue that NHS Test + Trace has been success..it has delivered on the objective to help break the chains of transmission"
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1413070768276135937

If you have to be called Dido, as well as having to learn Book 4 of the Aeneid by heart, you are under a sort of obligation to keep standards up and not confuse 'incredulous' and 'incredible'.

AlistairM

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

I suspect that being an out gay footballer would be met with a shrug, and little more than a bit of shower banter from the players. Times have moved on.

Fans too, where Pride events, flags etc go unremarked in crowds, indeed after one Leicester match the season before last, much of the crowd drifted up to Vicky Park for Leicester Pride to party into the night.

Its remarkable how fast the attitude towards LGB people has transformed. In the space of a generation its completely changed and now its basically embarrassing if anyone has an issue with them. Its really a change for the better.

I left the T off deliberately as the awkward collission between T rights and Women's Rights is an unresolved issue.

LGB rights could always be resolved by live and let live. The problem with Transgender and Women's rights is that I don't believe it can be resolved in the same way. For example, if transgender (male to female) athletes are allowed to compete against women then that is a lost battle for women's rights. I don't see how this can really be resolved. I'd love to hear a solution if someone has one!

Sandpit

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Dido Harding:
"I do appreciate a lot of people listening to this might find this rather incredulous given some of the way it's bn reported, but I wd actually argue that NHS Test + Trace has been success..it has delivered on the objective to help break the chains of transmission"
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1413070768276135937

If you have to be called Dido, as well as having to learn Book 4 of the Aeneid by heart, you are under a sort of obligation to keep standards up and not confuse 'incredulous' and 'incredible'.

What are we supposed to say to Dido, Thank You?

algarkirk

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Alistair said:

Mustique report is is as devastating as a report that doesn't find him guilty can be.

Apparently you can buy a Prime Minister and it doesn't matter.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnson-escapes-rap-24486178

Standards Commissioner - you have broken the code of conduct
MPs - no he hasn't (phew!)

Its the same nonsense as Patel and Hancock being found breaking the ministerial code and then the PM saying no they haven't. Or the forthcoming investigation into wallpaper-gate where they will find the PM guilty of breaking the ministerial code and then the PM will say no I haven't.

Once upon a time there used to be a Conservative Party who believed in standards, decency and the rule of law. Wherever did they go, and when the party post-Johnson painfully has to rebuild public trust in these basics will they come back?

Everyone is right about all of this, but there is no way that people taking free hols off mates is going to resonate with voters.

kjh

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

I suspect that being an out gay footballer would be met with a shrug, and little more than a bit of shower banter from the players. Times have moved on.

Fans too, where Pride events, flags etc go unremarked in crowds, indeed after one Leicester match the season before last, much of the crowd drifted up to Vicky Park for Leicester Pride to party into the night.

Its remarkable how fast the attitude towards LGB people has transformed. In the space of a generation its completely changed and now its basically embarrassing if anyone has an issue with them. Its really a change for the better.

I left the T off deliberately as the awkward collission between T rights and Women's Rights is an unresolved issue.

For all the negativity that is around it is good that things like race and sexuality have moved in the right direction. We may not be there yet but it is a hell of a lot better than the past.

When I was at school in the 60s there was nobody gay in my school. Clearly that statement is nonsense. I don't know who those who were gay were, but the fact that they had to suppress it must have been traumatic.

Foxy

AlistairM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

I suspect that being an out gay footballer would be met with a shrug, and little more than a bit of shower banter from the players. Times have moved on.

Fans too, where Pride events, flags etc go unremarked in crowds, indeed after one Leicester match the season before last, much of the crowd drifted up to Vicky Park for Leicester Pride to party into the night.

Its remarkable how fast the attitude towards LGB people has transformed. In the space of a generation its completely changed and now its basically embarrassing if anyone has an issue with them. Its really a change for the better.

I left the T off deliberately as the awkward collission between T rights and Women's Rights is an unresolved issue.

LGB rights could always be resolved by live and let live. The problem with Transgender and Women's rights is that I don't believe it can be resolved in the same way. For example, if transgender (male to female) athletes are allowed to compete against women then that is a lost battle for women's rights. I don't see how this can really be resolved. I'd love to hear a solution if someone has one!

One option might be to end gender classification for some sports, and replace it with a boxing like height/weight qualification

Roger

alex_ said:

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

You make a very good point. For us in the UK though the malignity is only half removed. If Johnson had followed his mentor I'm sure the Brexit divisiveness might also disappear

Have France chucked you out?

Not to my knowledge. Should they have done?

Leon

Slightly discouraging news from Indonesia


‘Meanwhile the lead scientist from the Sinovac trials in Indonesia has died of suspected Covid.’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/south-korea-records-highest-covid-case-numbers-as-wave-of-infections-sweeps-asia-pacific?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Casino_Royale

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Agree with this. I think the next election is going to feature some very interesting results in prosperous areas of the South. Most of the Tories I know through work are now ex Tories. Things like the "citizens of nowhere" speech went down like a bucket of cold sick on the trading floor. But the media are still engaged in their anthropological expeditions to Leaveland.

Confirmation bias. Given how raw your politics are Tories that disagree with you simply won't talk to you.

Alistair

AlistairM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

I suspect that being an out gay footballer would be met with a shrug, and little more than a bit of shower banter from the players. Times have moved on.

Fans too, where Pride events, flags etc go unremarked in crowds, indeed after one Leicester match the season before last, much of the crowd drifted up to Vicky Park for Leicester Pride to party into the night.

Its remarkable how fast the attitude towards LGB people has transformed. In the space of a generation its completely changed and now its basically embarrassing if anyone has an issue with them. Its really a change for the better.

I left the T off deliberately as the awkward collission between T rights and Women's Rights is an unresolved issue.

LGB rights could always be resolved by live and let live. The problem with Transgender and Women's rights is that I don't believe it can be resolved in the same way. For example, if transgender (male to female) athletes are allowed to compete against women then that is a lost battle for women's rights. I don't see how this can really be resolved. I'd love to hear a solution if someone has one!

Transgender athletes have been able to compete at the Olympics for years now. Over a decade at least.

alex_

Roger said:

alex_ said:

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Unlike many people, I've been feeling much more confident this year than last. Perhaps it's the vaccination campaign, or the fact we're slowly heading out of this mess.

But much of it is that we no longer have to listen to whatever random 'thoughts' pass through Trump's mind. I mean, I'm not an American, but the absence of the orange buffoon from the public scene is cheering.

You make a very good point. For us in the UK though the malignity is only half removed. If Johnson had followed his mentor I'm sure the Brexit divisiveness might also disappear

Have France chucked you out?

Not to my knowledge. Should they have done?

Just wondered about your “us in the U.K.” comment...

Richard_Nabavi

JosiasJessop said:

Am I the only person on here who sees 'COBRA' and automatically thinks about CORBA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Object_Request_Broker_Architecture

Yes.

williamglenn

Foxy said:

AlistairM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

kjh said:

@Cookie fpt:

While I accept your premise that the percentage of gay people is not homogenous across all professions it is also inconceivable that the number in football is so low that it appears to be zero.

Also yes people don't come out because of the negative reaction to them coming out whether that be fans, team mates, or the media. Why else would they not? There clearly is an issue in football as there is/was with race.

I guess we have to go through the stages of people coming out so that it is accepted before we can get to my original point which is people do not need to come out, because coming out is of no interest to anyone, a bit like a straight person declaring they are straight - who cares?

I suspect that being an out gay footballer would be met with a shrug, and little more than a bit of shower banter from the players. Times have moved on.

Fans too, where Pride events, flags etc go unremarked in crowds, indeed after one Leicester match the season before last, much of the crowd drifted up to Vicky Park for Leicester Pride to party into the night.

Its remarkable how fast the attitude towards LGB people has transformed. In the space of a generation its completely changed and now its basically embarrassing if anyone has an issue with them. Its really a change for the better.

I left the T off deliberately as the awkward collission between T rights and Women's Rights is an unresolved issue.

LGB rights could always be resolved by live and let live. The problem with Transgender and Women's rights is that I don't believe it can be resolved in the same way. For example, if transgender (male to female) athletes are allowed to compete against women then that is a lost battle for women's rights. I don't see how this can really be resolved. I'd love to hear a solution if someone has one!

One option might be to end gender classification for some sports, and replace it with a boxing like height/weight qualification

So you'd solve the problem by abolishing women's sports?