Howdy, Stranger!

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

Page not found – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Sandpit said:

    Odds checker are saying that Daley is now 8/1 for SPoTY.

    I stand by my betting strategy, which is to lay whoever just won something.

    So you’re laying Con Maj?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 54,884
    To be taken with a pinch/bucket of salt (no corresponding material in claimed source currently):

    There is optimism in government that the expert modelling of 100,000 cases per day was wrong - source
    Via @POLITICOEurope


    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419597828381413376?s=20
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,133
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    I wonder if, so long as Team GB don’t massively overperform, they give the team award to the England football team - which nicely gets them out of having to nominate one of the team for the individual award.

    Giving the team award to Team GB is stupid. Team of the year should go to an actual team rather than just a collection of individuals and teams competing for us.
    Indeed, but that’s exactly what they did in 2012. Usually they pick one sport, such as cycling or rowing.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,535
    Tom Daley News: he appears to have changed his name to Matty Lee
    https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1419591603421908995
    (that's quite the snafu from whoever put the names out or whoever directed them to the seats!)
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,878
    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,507

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    John Cleese -> Boomer
    Ronnie Barker -> Millennials
    Ronnie Corbett -> GenX
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    Thank you.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    edited July 2021
    (duplicate)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,908
    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    I always think of Kurt Cobain as the ultimate Gen Xer for some reason.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,133
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Odds checker are saying that Daley is now 8/1 for SPoTY.

    I stand by my betting strategy, which is to lay whoever just won something.

    Dangerous game, I think. Daley has a very good chance.
    Of course he has a good chance, but he’s likely to be a whole lot longer than 8/1 in a fortnight’s time. Unless we have a total shocker of a Games.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    edited July 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Poor Laura.

    Not even the most well known Pidcock anymore.

    So well known I had to google her. And I’m a politics geek.
    If you didn’t know of Laura Pidcock, you missed the 2019 election night’s “Portillo Moment”!

    Thousands of Brexiteer Tories will remind themselves three decades from now, were you up for Pidcock?
    I was tuned in to the Scottish coverage and I cannot recall that being mentioned. These are long shows of course so I may have been having a pee.

    Is there a reason I should have heard of her?

    (Portillo was very famous indeed at the time of his seat loss. I do remember that one warmly.)
    Labour's hard left were talking her up as the heir apparent for Jez. She's thick as pigshit so you can see why they worshipped her.
    All that internal Corbynism stuff kind of passed me by. Labour are a minor force in Scottish politics, so they get minimal coverage. We do hear a fair bit from their main Scottish spokespeople, but someone like this Laura Pidcock person would just never register.

    I can understand why Labour internal matters get more attention in England and Wales, where they are one of the top two parties.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,825
    edited July 2021
    What the hells going on with BBC coverage again. I was watching the hockey on red button, it goes to half time and now all over the place.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 54,884
    Tom Daley's pre-competition message to husband & son:

    https://twitter.com/DLanceBlack/status/1419383347902656518?s=20
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    kle4 said:

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    Thank you.
    I look up to Kle4....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,133

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    Because otherwise, the quality of debate in Parliament goes down to the level of random people commenting on blogs.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,164
    Leon said:

    FPT:

    Regarding Andy the King of The North Burnham. Mate of mine yesterday pointed out that the Andy Burnham Gary Neville Jamie Carragher axis of northern based commentators seem to reach all kinds of people that serkeir can only dream of.

    "Imagine what happens if Gareth Southgate gets involved..." he said, and yeah, imagine. Other countries have seen sports stars transition into politics and become Governor, Prime Minister and President. Even if GNev doesn't fancy the top job himself, he and his northern mates could do a lot to influence a lot of people away from Boris and the bungocracy towards an alternative.

    Lots has been said about Burnham not being available for the leadership. Cobblers, a safe seat can be found quickly enough should it come down to it. Stepping away from Westminster as Jezbollah poisoned the well was a smart move - Burnham not only is seen as a clean skin, he is also delivering as Mayor of Greater Lancashire.

    I think that is frankly b****cks. In this country to represent Labour you need to use Local Schools and NHS hospitals I am sure we can all think of the Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools whilst advocating closing private schools to their voters. This is because it is a big issue for Labour.

    And Andy Burnham is a fantastic opposer and local voice but he frankly got mullered by Milliband and Corbyn. Do we really think he has 'it' to convince people he should be the next leader. Next he's not from London which shouldn't matter but seems to help Labour leaders, and finally Labour should be embarrassed they have not had a woman or ethnic minority leader and might want to do something about that.

    Apart from that he's got a pretty good chance.
    Burnham made ONE mistake in 2015. Harperson wanted to abstain on some bill, it was totemic, and Burnham got caught in the headlights. He knew that abstaining at 2nd reading didn't let the bill pass, but didn't get the impact the image of this had on the leadership campaign. I and so many others pulled our support of him.

    What dropping out of the Commons has allowed him to do is regain his composure and play on the national stage from a smaller platform. The Burnham of today has learned huge amounts vs the Burnham of 2015.
    It’s this basic. When Burnham appears on TV, I myself - as a baby-eating Tory-voting Brexiteer - think ‘ok I’ll listen to what he has to say, sometimes he has a point, even if it’s dull’

    He gets a listen. I can’t think of anyone else in Labour who does that. For me. I will happily listen to Corbyn - but it’s because he pleases me by making me laugh at Labour. ‘This guy was your leader HAHAHA’. I can’t listen to Starmer because he would make Shakespeare’s “gentlemen abed in England” speech sound like a presentation by a water filter salesman with a hangover.

    So if Burnham can make a cynical right wing drunk like me pay at least passing interest, he has something

    As someone else noted, Burnham is a bit like Gary Neville. Same flat northern vowels, same boring Woke nonsense. And yet, I listen. Sensing that I should
    Laura Pidcock was similar in that she usually appeared as if she might say something interesting (unless I've mixed her up with RLB but I think it is LP) even when she did not. Keir Starmer, apart from last PMQs, sounds as if he is making a subtle, dry, technical point that will be appreciated by the Justices of the Supreme Court rather than addressing the jury.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,136
    To divert for a minute:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57968392

    Does anyone think that the relentless pushing of 'wild swimming' in the Grauniad and on the BBC might not have been a terribly good idea?

    These incidents may not have been related to that (just the good weather), but still...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    kle4 said:

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    Thank you.
    I look up to Kle4....
    Do you get a pain in the back of your neck? :smile:
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    For those focussed on Daley for SPOTY it's worth saying that the reasons why Cavendish won't win it are reason that could still go wrong from Tom. His second event is on August 7th - do badly and he won't be in the running.

    Laura Kenny has 3 chances to win gold - if she gets the lot she will have won 7 across 3 Olympics. Jason Kenny is also in a similar situation.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 27,713

    What the hells going on with BBC coverage again. I was watching the hockey on red button, it goes to half time and now all over the place.

    When I look at the 'field hockey' and compare the surfaces with what I played on in the 50's and v.v. early 60's, it looks like a different game.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,588
    BBC's correspondent reporting on the increasing harassment of foreign journalists in China.
    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1419196657724530688
  • mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    Those of us in the public sector, from the one who picks up your litter to the doctor who saves your life salute you!
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825

    What the hells going on with BBC coverage again. I was watching the hockey on red button, it goes to half time and now all over the place.

    only 2 streams available so the BBC is picking and choosing (badly quite often).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,878
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    Because otherwise, the quality of debate in Parliament goes down to the level of random people commenting on blogs.
    There is better debate on here than in PMQ. In fact most of them there is no debate, just two (or more) sides grandstanding not answering questions (and lying!).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 27,713
    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too @LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).

    Happy birthday. Enjoy it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,049
    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too @LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).

    Many happy returns!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,357

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Poor Laura.

    Not even the most well known Pidcock anymore.

    So we’ll known I had to google her. And I’m a politics geek.
    If you didn’t know of Laura Pidcock, you missed the 2019 election night’s “Portillo Moment”!

    Thousands of Brexiteer Tories will remind themselves three decades from now, were you up for Pidcock?
    I was tuned in to the Scottish coverage and I cannot recall that being mentioned. These are long shows of course so I may have been having a pee.

    Is there a reason I should have heard of her?

    (Portillo was very famous indeed at the time of his seat loss. I do remember that one warmly.)
    Labour's hard left were talking her up as the heir apparent for Jez. She's thick as pigshit so you can see why they worshipped her.
    All that internal Corbynism stuff kind of passed me by. Labour are a minor force in Scottish politics, so they get minimal coverage. We do hear a fair bit from their major Scottish voices, but someone like this Laura Pidcock person would just never register.

    I can understand why Labour internal matters get more attention in England and Wales, where they are one of the top two parties.
    Does it fall to me to point out that you live in Sweden?

    So, when you say, ‘we only hear about Scottish politics in Scotland’, that’s because you feverishly tune in on your Bakelite Tartan radio in your house in Malmo, wearing your Blooded and Soiled Kilt, desperately trying to ONLY tune in to Scottish radio stations?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too @LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).

    Happy birthday! Just keep off the Sunny Delight.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    Those of us in the public sector, from the one who picks up your litter to the doctor who saves your life salute you!
    Those in the private sector , from the one who picks up your litter to the pharmaceutical scientist who saves your life salute you! (and we don't ask you to keep topping up our massive pension pots at your expense).
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,535
    edited July 2021

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    So are we Millenials at this rate.
    Heh, I still think of myself as GenX, despite being quite comfortably in the millenial birth years. I think when I first heard the term I assumed it was for those born 2000 onwards.

    Odd as, in most things, I think I'm younger than I actually am.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,806
    kjh said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    According to the doctor Contrarian referenced from the Fox interview he reckoned if it wasn't for his diet he would live to 200!

    After the discussion with Contrarian I had a look at the Fox piece on Biden's 'dementia'. Now I have no idea if he has dementia or not, but that piece added nothing to the debate whatsoever and the fact that Contrarian thinks Fox is just 'right leaning' tells you everything you need to know about people who absorb their output.
    Fox are not so much Right Leaning as Leaning in a Geometry That Is Wrong (see H. P. Lovecraft)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 54,884
    Nigelb said:

    BBC's correspondent reporting on the increasing harassment of foreign journalists in China.
    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1419196657724530688

    As someone pointed out - that's a sign of insecurity, not confidence.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,357
    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too @LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).

    I don’t know if this is a compliment or not, but from your comments I guessed you were a wry, slightly waspish early 60s

    Happy Birthday
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    edited July 2021
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Poor Laura.

    Not even the most well known Pidcock anymore.

    So well known I had to google her. And I’m a politics geek.
    If you didn’t know of Laura Pidcock, you missed the 2019 election night’s “Portillo Moment”!

    Thousands of Brexiteer Tories will remind themselves three decades from now, were you up for Pidcock?
    I was tuned in to the Scottish coverage and I cannot recall that being mentioned. These are long shows of course so I may have been having a pee.

    Is there a reason I should have heard of her?

    (Portillo was very famous indeed at the time of his seat loss. I do remember that one warmly.)
    Labour's hard left were talking her up as the heir apparent for Jez. She's thick as pigshit so you can see why they worshipped her.
    All that internal Corbynism stuff kind of passed me by. Labour are a minor force in Scottish politics, so they get minimal coverage. We do hear a fair bit from their main Scottish spokespeople, but someone like this Laura Pidcock person would just never register.

    I can understand why Labour internal matters get more attention in England and Wales, where they are one of the top two parties.
    Does it fall to me to point out that you live in Sweden?

    So, when you say, ‘we only hear about Scottish politics in Scotland’, that’s because you feverishly tune in on your Bakelite Tartan radio in your house in Malmo, wearing your Blooded and Soiled Kilt, desperately trying to ONLY tune in to Scottish radio stations?
    Nope. I listen to tons of Radio 4 and other English-based podcasts. Can’t recall ever hearing about a Laura Pidcock in my life. And as I say, I’m a politics geek. No chance ordinary folk have registered that name.

    You do realise that there is a Real World outwith PB Sean?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 27,713

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    Because otherwise, the quality of debate in Parliament goes down to the level of random people commenting on blogs.
    There is better debate on here than in PMQ. In fact most of them there is no debate, just two (or more) sides grandstanding not answering questions (and lying!).
    Which is why Starmer isn't good at it. He's come to it after a career where people weighed up the evidence and reacted to it. They might have had sometimes to make a meal out of very thin gruel but he hasn't done the time that most MP's have before they get to the Front Bench.
    Johnson's been in the House around 13 years, and also Mayor of London
    Starmer's been in the House 6 years and before that was a practising barrister.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,164

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    I worked in the private sector and although not well-paid by pb standards, I'm confident I'd have earned less in the public sector. Of course, it was the private sector that made me redundant!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

    What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

    When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

    I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    edited July 2021
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    Thank you.
    I look up to Kle4....
    Do you get a pain in the back of your neck? :smile:
    On that theme, I learned a new term today, nerwarteter Nahschuss.




  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,377
    Sandpit said:

    Odds checker are saying that Daley is now 8/1 for SPoTY.

    I stand by my betting strategy, which is to lay whoever just won something.

    Not even the most impressive British Tom winning a gold this morning.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    Leon said:

    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too @LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).

    I don’t know if this is a compliment or not, but from your comments I guessed you were a wry, slightly waspish early 60s

    Happy Birthday
    What happened @Leon? Why have you suddenly started being nice to people? You haven't been struck by a brilliant light on a certain road in the middle east recently perchance?
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,261

    Leon said:

    For SPOTY bettors, a reminder of Tom Daley’s story


    ‘Tom Daley was:
    14 when he went to his first Olympics.
    15 when he first became world champion.
    17 when his dad and mentor Rob died from a brain tumour.
    18 when he won London 2012 bronze.
    22 when he won Rio bronze.
    27 when he won #Tokyo2020  gold.’

    https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1419570498812485632?s=21

    How can he not win?

    He wins. And bravo

    Don't the public vote on this though. Is the swimming lobby strong? It will probably be Marcus Rashford.
    Should be Sterling. Good at football and diving.
    Bravo
    Thanks, if you were serious rather than sarky about Rashford, note he should be at least 33/1 to be nominated, so very unlikely even if he would do well if nominated.
    I don't think Rashford will win it but he has wider exposure in the news, and that is a big advantage. Whilst Daley has done well and has minor interest out of the sport pages, the disadvantages are that the high diving / swimming community is small. Athletics, and cycling seem to well because they have multiple routes to gold. Also people are in cycling and running clubs all over the country. Motor sport also seems to do well for champions, and we have had a lot.

    In an Olympic year we are likely to have an Olympian,. and I think Daley is in with as much a shout as any other gold medalists. I can't think of any particularly charismatic atheletes.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,524
    I said this some time ago. Only death or disqualification will stop him from running again. Congress fumbled on disqualification.

    The faithful are still with him, it's hard to see why he wouldn't win the nomination, particularly when it's being presented as righting the stolen election.

    Turnout for Democrats at the midterms is crucial. That's the ballgame right there.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 872

    British understatement:

    Laugh out loud moment with @Tompid there in the @BBCSport post-race interview.

    Interviewer: How long has this been your dream?

    Tom: Not that long really. Late last year? I'm glad I didn't have the stress of four years preparing and thinking about it.

    Amazing.


    https://twitter.com/ruddick/status/1419578809121222657?s=20

    It isn't really an understatement. He is a multi-talented bike rider who has been destined for great things in almost any category he enters. For example in 2017 he won:

    - British Junior Cycle-Cross Championship
    - Junior World Road Race Championship
    - Paris-Roubaix Juniors
    - British National Scratch Championships (track event)
    - Junior World Time Trial Championships

    He probably determined that the MTB event was the one where he had most chance of getting a medal and was a pre-race favourite despite only training for it for less than a year.

    He is with Ineos Grenadiers on the road and is expected to compete in his first grand tour at the Vuelta starting on 14th August. It will be interesting to see how he gets on!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,588
    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too @LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).

    You've got my vote against Trump.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Selebian said:

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    So are we Millenials at this rate.
    Heh, I still think of myself as GenX, despite being quite comfortably in the millenial birth years. I think when I first heard the term I assumed it was for those born 2000 onwards.

    Odd as, in most things, I think I'm younger than I actually am.
    Yes ironically people turning 18 now are not Millenials but that's who I kind of think is a Millenial most of the time, despite it actually being us.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    kle4 said:

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    Thank you.
    I look up to Kle4....
    That's a new experience for me :)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    Mr. kle4, you make yourself sound like a hobbit :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    Nigelb said:

    BBC's correspondent reporting on the increasing harassment of foreign journalists in China.
    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1419196657724530688

    As someone pointed out - that's a sign of insecurity, not confidence.
    Perhaps, but in the short to medium term for definite that hardly matters.

    Beijing was not confident about Hong Kong, reportedly they believed their own lies about popularity until the parish elections a few years back, so must have been shaken, but they still sorted that out to their total satisfaction.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Poor Laura.

    Not even the most well known Pidcock anymore.

    So well known I had to google her. And I’m a politics geek.
    If you didn’t know of Laura Pidcock, you missed the 2019 election night’s “Portillo Moment”!

    Thousands of Brexiteer Tories will remind themselves three decades from now, were you up for Pidcock?
    I was tuned in to the Scottish coverage and I cannot recall that being mentioned. These are long shows of course so I may have been having a pee.

    Is there a reason I should have heard of her?

    (Portillo was very famous indeed at the time of his seat loss. I do remember that one warmly.)
    Labour's hard left were talking her up as the heir apparent for Jez. She's thick as pigshit so you can see why they worshipped her.
    All that internal Corbynism stuff kind of passed me by. Labour are a minor force in Scottish politics, so they get minimal coverage. We do hear a fair bit from their main Scottish spokespeople, but someone like this Laura Pidcock person would just never register.

    I can understand why Labour internal matters get more attention in England and Wales, where they are one of the top two parties.
    Does it fall to me to point out that you live in Sweden?

    So, when you say, ‘we only hear about Scottish politics in Scotland’, that’s because you feverishly tune in on your Bakelite Tartan radio in your house in Malmo, wearing your Blooded and Soiled Kilt, desperately trying to ONLY tune in to Scottish radio stations?
    You do realise that there is a Real World outwith PB Sean?
    Sounds like fake news to me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
    Thank you.
    I look up to Kle4....
    Do you get a pain in the back of your neck? :smile:
    On that theme, I learned a new term today, nerwarteter Nahschuss.




    Truly Orwellian. The resemblance to the last paragraph of Nineteen Eighty Four is eerie.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    Mr. kle4, you make yourself sound like a hobbit :)

    I do have hobbit style feet...
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,507

    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

    *Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

    This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.
    So are we Millenials at this rate.
    Squeezed by my daughter's massive boom2 generation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,588
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    BBC's correspondent reporting on the increasing harassment of foreign journalists in China.
    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1419196657724530688

    As someone pointed out - that's a sign of insecurity, not confidence.
    Perhaps, but in the short to medium term for definite that hardly matters.

    Beijing was not confident about Hong Kong, reportedly they believed their own lies about popularity until the parish elections a few years back, so must have been shaken, but they still sorted that out to their total satisfaction.
    The point of the story is that even the most sympathetic reporting by organs not controlled by the Chinese state is subject to absurd paranoia.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939
    kle4 said:

    Mr. kle4, you make yourself sound like a hobbit :)

    I do have hobbit style feet...
    this conversation is getting a bit hairy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,588
    A tweet thread for the upcoming apocalypse, which seems entirely credible(ish).
    https://twitter.com/mycoliza/status/1417539271192309761
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,878
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

    What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

    When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

    I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.
    Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. kle4, you make yourself sound like a hobbit :)

    I do have hobbit style feet...
    this conversation is getting a bit hairy.
    Oh no, I'd hoped you might shire away from puns today
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    AlistairM said:

    British understatement:

    Laugh out loud moment with @Tompid there in the @BBCSport post-race interview.

    Interviewer: How long has this been your dream?

    Tom: Not that long really. Late last year? I'm glad I didn't have the stress of four years preparing and thinking about it.

    Amazing.


    https://twitter.com/ruddick/status/1419578809121222657?s=20

    It isn't really an understatement. He is a multi-talented bike rider who has been destined for great things in almost any category he enters. For example in 2017 he won:

    - British Junior Cycle-Cross Championship
    - Junior World Road Race Championship
    - Paris-Roubaix Juniors
    - British National Scratch Championships (track event)
    - Junior World Time Trial Championships

    He probably determined that the MTB event was the one where he had most chance of getting a medal and was a pre-race favourite despite only training for it for less than a year.

    He is with Ineos Grenadiers on the road and is expected to compete in his first grand tour at the Vuelta starting on 14th August. It will be interesting to see how he gets on!
    In my opinion that undermines the achievement a little bit*. It's a bit like the swimmers that win lots of golds. These disciplines don't feel particularly specialised if someone can just pick the event that they think they can win.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939
    edited July 2021

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. kle4, you make yourself sound like a hobbit :)

    I do have hobbit style feet...
    this conversation is getting a bit hairy.
    Oh no, I'd hoped you might shire away from puns today
    Really? You must have been at the Brandywine.

    (PS, that pun would have worked better as just ‘shire way.’)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,524
    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).
    There are still a few County Cricketers older than me, yes, but not many.

    Happy Birthday GeoffW
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).
    There are still a few County Cricketers older than me, yes, but not many.

    Happy Birthday GeoffW
    Long may Darren Stevens endure...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

    What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

    When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

    I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.
    Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.
    The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

    Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

    And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,223
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    For SPOTY bettors, a reminder of Tom Daley’s story


    ‘Tom Daley was:
    14 when he went to his first Olympics.
    15 when he first became world champion.
    17 when his dad and mentor Rob died from a brain tumour.
    18 when he won London 2012 bronze.
    22 when he won Rio bronze.
    27 when he won #Tokyo2020  gold.’

    https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1419570498812485632?s=21

    How can he not win?

    He wins. And bravo

    I agree he must be a pretty strong runner, but we don't know what is to come. I would have also put Mark Cavendish up there (for exactly the same sort of reasons), but maybe has has scuppered his chances by not winning in Paris. If he had of done so I think he would have been difficult to beat.
    Yes, I think Cavendish might have been a major threat - esp with the cycling lobby - but he just lost. It really matters

    Setting aside Daley’s personal tragedy and gay status (tho his bravery in both are estimable) what marks out Daley is the sequence. Bronze, bronze, GOLD. That’s 12 years of relentless Olympic training, finally paying off. Imagine the tedious days of diving, hour after hour, year after year. Finally he gets there. And he could so easily have quit and been rich and leisured.

    That’s quite something
    I think you are right, but just to clarify when you say 'lost' I assume you simply mean didn't win the Paris stage because he certainly didn't lose. Four stage wins, winning the Green Jersey and matching the all time record of stage wins is some feat. But of course you are right in what I think you are saying which is the build up to Paris was immense and he didn't get it.

    His history of course is a story to tell like Daley. All those stage wins and then to be struck down, never expected to win again, gets a place in a team at the last moment and wins again after all these years to match that great record.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,570
    Leon said:

    For SPOTY bettors, a reminder of Tom Daley’s story


    ‘Tom Daley was:
    14 when he went to his first Olympics.
    15 when he first became world champion.
    17 when his dad and mentor Rob died from a brain tumour.
    18 when he won London 2012 bronze.
    22 when he won Rio bronze.
    27 when he won #Tokyo2020  gold.’

    https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1419570498812485632?s=21

    How can he not win?

    He wins. And bravo

    Daley should win the Sports Personality of the Year Award on the straightforward grounds that he is unusually personable compared with most single-minded results-driven sportspeople
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,908
    tlg86 said:

    AlistairM said:

    British understatement:

    Laugh out loud moment with @Tompid there in the @BBCSport post-race interview.

    Interviewer: How long has this been your dream?

    Tom: Not that long really. Late last year? I'm glad I didn't have the stress of four years preparing and thinking about it.

    Amazing.


    https://twitter.com/ruddick/status/1419578809121222657?s=20

    It isn't really an understatement. He is a multi-talented bike rider who has been destined for great things in almost any category he enters. For example in 2017 he won:

    - British Junior Cycle-Cross Championship
    - Junior World Road Race Championship
    - Paris-Roubaix Juniors
    - British National Scratch Championships (track event)
    - Junior World Time Trial Championships

    He probably determined that the MTB event was the one where he had most chance of getting a medal and was a pre-race favourite despite only training for it for less than a year.

    He is with Ineos Grenadiers on the road and is expected to compete in his first grand tour at the Vuelta starting on 14th August. It will be interesting to see how he gets on!
    In my opinion that undermines the achievement a little bit*. It's a bit like the swimmers that win lots of golds. These disciplines don't feel particularly specialised if someone can just pick the event that they think they can win.
    The road race and time trial golds are probably the most prestigious. There's an absolute mountain of gold that can be won in the velodrome comparitvely in particular.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,878
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

    What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

    When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

    I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.
    Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.
    The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

    Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

    And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).
    The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,904

    To divert for a minute:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57968392

    Does anyone think that the relentless pushing of 'wild swimming' in the Grauniad and on the BBC might not have been a terribly good idea?

    These incidents may not have been related to that (just the good weather), but still...

    Given that these deaths have happened during a heatwave and didn't happen for many weeks and months of wild swimming being promoted previously makes me think that they are not to blame. Wild swimming is a form of exercise with some level of risk, but it can be done safely and generally is. I think having a go at people trying to promote a pleasant form of outdoor activity just because, during a heatwave and not as part of an organised exercise, some people suffer tragedies seem rather off to me.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    So lots of wibbling about how poor an olympics we were going to have. Just watching out third gold of the morning now... Not saying we are going to smash it, but some of the chat was a bit previous. 😀

    I would love to be wrong, my worry is that in rowing, track cycling and sailing we're going to be well down in London and Rio. Those are a lot of gold medals for us.
    Absolutely. Just pointing out how we’ve already got 3 golds and only half way through day 3. Lots of our medals come in odd places, such as the dancing kicking and falling into water etc.
    Too many daft events in the Olympics. It should be slashed down to approx 20 key sports, including:

    Athletics
    Swimming
    Cycling
    Equestrian
    Gymnastics
    Fencing
    Wrestling
    Water polo

    Sports which definitely should not be there include:

    Soccer
    Golf
    Tennis
    Softball
    Skateboarding
    Yeah any sport where the Olympic gold isn't the pinnacle is probably something that shouldn't be there. Football, golf and tennis seem like they were added to try and get viewers but ultimately that's not what people watch at the Olympics.
    I’m not sure I agree. I think it’s much more subjective than that.

    I mean, take road cycling. The Olympics are not the pinnacle of that sport. The 3 grand tours are much more important and prestigious. And if we only look at one-day races, the 5 Monuments are more prestigious, and many other classics plus the WC are on a par. Nevertheless, cycling easily passes the “Olympics Smell Test”.

    Rock climbing, hot air ballooning and live pigeon shooting fail. (Although the pigeon shooting was probably a bit smelly.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,357
    Many happy returns to @geoffw

    On topic this looks like a solid lay to me. The American legal system grinds embarrassingly slow but I suspect that Trump will be up to his armpits in litigation and quite possibly insolvency by then.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    Dithering Sir K now saying he supports vaxports saying media.

    As I said the other day, I was always worried that defeating this madness relies on the LOTO who is as flaky as a pouch of St Bernard.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

    What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

    When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

    I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.
    Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.
    The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

    Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

    And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).
    The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.
    Rules such as?

    If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

    The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

    Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

    This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,409
    Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

    Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

    Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

    FFS.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748

    Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

    Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

    Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

    FFS.

    He is increasingly looking like he doesn't have a thought in his head other than what do Deborah's focus groups tell us?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,049

    geoffw said:

    If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

    In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

    Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
    And happy birthday to you too LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).
    There are still a few County Cricketers older than me, yes, but not many.

    Happy Birthday GeoffW
    What was excellent was mark Todd at age 60+ lying 3rd in x country at badminton a couple of years ago being asked What do you think of these names below you on the leader board and saying Sorry can't read them without my glasses.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,028

    Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

    Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

    Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

    FFS.

    He is increasingly looking like he doesn't have a thought in his head other than what do Deborah's focus groups tell us?
    Which he, and who is Deborah?
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,719

    Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

    Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

    Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

    FFS.

    I know OGH loves SKS, but he has had so many open goals that he has missed, he is just not a good politician.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

    Yeah it's completely ridiculous. Of the two approaches at least the government one makes sense.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    edited July 2021

    Sandpit said:

    Poor Laura.

    Not even the most well known Pidcock anymore.

    So well known I had to google her. And I’m a politics geek.
    If you didn’t know of Laura Pidcock, you missed the 2019 election night’s “Portillo Moment”!

    Thousands of Brexiteer Tories will remind themselves three decades from now, were you up for Pidcock?
    I was tuned in to the Scottish coverage and I cannot recall that being mentioned. These are long shows of course so I may have been having a pee.

    Is there a reason I should have heard of her?

    (Portillo was very famous indeed at the time of his seat loss. I do remember that one warmly.)
    Laura Pidcock was Corbyn's leading fangirl, would have been a cabinet minister in a Corbyn government and reputed to be his choice to succeed him as Labour leader.
    In other words, pretty marginal to Scottish politics.

    As I say, if a polling company ran one of those Approve/Disapprove questions on her among Scottish respondents, 99% would be DK.

    Jeepers, even party leaders like Wullie Rennie often get immense DK figures.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. kle4, you make yourself sound like a hobbit :)

    I do have hobbit style feet...
    this conversation is getting a bit hairy.
    Oh no, I'd hoped you might shire away from puns today
    Really? You must have been at the Brandywine.

    (PS, that pun would have worked better as just ‘shire way.’)
    Agreed, I struggle with puns on this subject, because unlike almost all subject areas, where I am supremely knowledgeable (as all PB contributors), on this area I am not sure I know what I am Tolkien about.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,878
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

    What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

    When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

    I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.
    Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.
    The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

    Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

    And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).
    The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.
    Rules such as?

    If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

    The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

    Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

    This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.
    I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

    A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,454
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    FPT:

    Regarding Andy the King of The North Burnham. Mate of mine yesterday pointed out that the Andy Burnham Gary Neville Jamie Carragher axis of northern based commentators seem to reach all kinds of people that serkeir can only dream of.

    "Imagine what happens if Gareth Southgate gets involved..." he said, and yeah, imagine. Other countries have seen sports stars transition into politics and become Governor, Prime Minister and President. Even if GNev doesn't fancy the top job himself, he and his northern mates could do a lot to influence a lot of people away from Boris and the bungocracy towards an alternative.

    Lots has been said about Burnham not being available for the leadership. Cobblers, a safe seat can be found quickly enough should it come down to it. Stepping away from Westminster as Jezbollah poisoned the well was a smart move - Burnham not only is seen as a clean skin, he is also delivering as Mayor of Greater Lancashire.

    I think that is frankly b****cks. In this country to represent Labour you need to use Local Schools and NHS hospitals I am sure we can all think of the Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools whilst advocating closing private schools to their voters. This is because it is a big issue for Labour.

    And Andy Burnham is a fantastic opposer and local voice but he frankly got mullered by Milliband and Corbyn. Do we really think he has 'it' to convince people he should be the next leader. Next he's not from London which shouldn't matter but seems to help Labour leaders, and finally Labour should be embarrassed they have not had a woman or ethnic minority leader and might want to do something about that.

    Apart from that he's got a pretty good chance.
    Burnham made ONE mistake in 2015. Harperson wanted to abstain on some bill, it was totemic, and Burnham got caught in the headlights. He knew that abstaining at 2nd reading didn't let the bill pass, but didn't get the impact the image of this had on the leadership campaign. I and so many others pulled our support of him.

    What dropping out of the Commons has allowed him to do is regain his composure and play on the national stage from a smaller platform. The Burnham of today has learned huge amounts vs the Burnham of 2015.
    Burnham's other issue is that he can't be mayor of Manchester and also an MP.

    Which means if he wishes to lead the Labour party the only way he can do so is by quitting his current role and that risks immediate irrelevancy if he isn't lucky.
    Yep. His best shot is to hope that Starmer is still there at the next election (which is big odds-on, Lab are crap at getting rid of leaders), and that he can find a safe seat to get into (which shouldn’t be too difficult).

    Burnham’s big worry (from the point of view of leadership ambitions) is that the general election is early, and he looks like he’s running away from Manchester soon after they re-elected him.
    Burnham won't run in the GE in 2023. If Starmer goes afterwards they will parachute him into a safe seat if they want him and he wants it.
    The timeframe and the way the Labour party works means he can't be parachuted into a safe seat unless Starmer intentionally stayed to give Burnham the chance to do that.

    So either Burnham picks a safe seat for the 2023 general election or he isn't in the game.
    As I said before - Leicester East and Poplar & Limehouse potentially available soon.

    But is it too early for him in the next 6 months?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    Reproduced mainly because I like the term 'grade A pussio'.


  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

    What is the point in that?

    The purpose of vaxports is to nudge people into getting the vaccine.

    Vaxport or test system has all the downsides of the rigmarole and possibility of big state tracking etc - but without the upside.

    Completely missed the point!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    edited July 2021

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

    What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

    When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

    I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.
    Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.
    The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

    Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

    And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).
    The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.
    Rules such as?

    If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

    The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

    Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

    This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.
    I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

    A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).
    Certainly I think the barracking should be dealt with. As you note it is already against rules. Problem is people say they don't like the childish barracking of PMQs but I think they actually do, so even though everyone says it is a problem and therefore should be easy to resolve, they won't do so as secretly the MPs know people like the drama.

    Bercow, for all his faults, seemed to know that, and so while he would criticise it he turned it into his own comedy stand up hour while telling them to be quiet.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,908
    MaxPB said:

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

    Yeah it's completely ridiculous. Of the two approaches at least the government one makes sense.
    Labour's proposal probably kills both vaccination takeup rates and the night time entertainment industry in one fell swoop.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 27,713
    DavidL said:

    Many happy returns to @geoffw

    On topic this looks like a solid lay to me. The American legal system grinds embarrassingly slow but I suspect that Trump will be up to his armpits in litigation and quite possibly insolvency by then.

    Liked. And hope so!!
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745
    Starmer can Fuck Right Off on Vax Passports. Support their use for Nightclubs and Football? He was *attacking* the nightclubs issue on Wednesday last week. He doesn't want to see them in daily use for essential things? What does he think they will do? We need them for a nighclub but not for a train ride or museum?

    "Your papers please" is what the west was against in the cold war. Can't go about your life without having to stand in line and show your credentials to some gimboid. I hear some people say "other countries have ID cards" and yes they do, a photo ID like our driving licence. Useful things. What they don't have - and nobody proposed before is "your papers please" becoming part of daily life.

    To quote Sigourney Weaver's Tawney Maddison on Galaxy Quest: "Well Fuck that."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    BBC News majoring on Peaty. I guess he was expected to win so they had more stuff on him ready to go.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

    Yeah it's completely ridiculous. Of the two approaches at least the government one makes sense.
    Labour's proposal probably kills both vaccination takeup rates and the night time entertainment industry in one fell swoop.
    Indeed.

    Vaxxports for universities would probably do the job, if it guarantees that universities can then operate without interruptions and without social distancing.

    Plus it would be in line with vaccines being required for school education in many places.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    MattW said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    FPT:

    Regarding Andy the King of The North Burnham. Mate of mine yesterday pointed out that the Andy Burnham Gary Neville Jamie Carragher axis of northern based commentators seem to reach all kinds of people that serkeir can only dream of.

    "Imagine what happens if Gareth Southgate gets involved..." he said, and yeah, imagine. Other countries have seen sports stars transition into politics and become Governor, Prime Minister and President. Even if GNev doesn't fancy the top job himself, he and his northern mates could do a lot to influence a lot of people away from Boris and the bungocracy towards an alternative.

    Lots has been said about Burnham not being available for the leadership. Cobblers, a safe seat can be found quickly enough should it come down to it. Stepping away from Westminster as Jezbollah poisoned the well was a smart move - Burnham not only is seen as a clean skin, he is also delivering as Mayor of Greater Lancashire.

    I think that is frankly b****cks. In this country to represent Labour you need to use Local Schools and NHS hospitals I am sure we can all think of the Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools whilst advocating closing private schools to their voters. This is because it is a big issue for Labour.

    And Andy Burnham is a fantastic opposer and local voice but he frankly got mullered by Milliband and Corbyn. Do we really think he has 'it' to convince people he should be the next leader. Next he's not from London which shouldn't matter but seems to help Labour leaders, and finally Labour should be embarrassed they have not had a woman or ethnic minority leader and might want to do something about that.

    Apart from that he's got a pretty good chance.
    Burnham made ONE mistake in 2015. Harperson wanted to abstain on some bill, it was totemic, and Burnham got caught in the headlights. He knew that abstaining at 2nd reading didn't let the bill pass, but didn't get the impact the image of this had on the leadership campaign. I and so many others pulled our support of him.

    What dropping out of the Commons has allowed him to do is regain his composure and play on the national stage from a smaller platform. The Burnham of today has learned huge amounts vs the Burnham of 2015.
    Burnham's other issue is that he can't be mayor of Manchester and also an MP.

    Which means if he wishes to lead the Labour party the only way he can do so is by quitting his current role and that risks immediate irrelevancy if he isn't lucky.
    Yep. His best shot is to hope that Starmer is still there at the next election (which is big odds-on, Lab are crap at getting rid of leaders), and that he can find a safe seat to get into (which shouldn’t be too difficult).

    Burnham’s big worry (from the point of view of leadership ambitions) is that the general election is early, and he looks like he’s running away from Manchester soon after they re-elected him.
    Burnham won't run in the GE in 2023. If Starmer goes afterwards they will parachute him into a safe seat if they want him and he wants it.
    The timeframe and the way the Labour party works means he can't be parachuted into a safe seat unless Starmer intentionally stayed to give Burnham the chance to do that.

    So either Burnham picks a safe seat for the 2023 general election or he isn't in the game.
    As I said before - Leicester East and Poplar & Limehouse potentially available soon.

    But is it too early for him in the next 6 months?
    Both require going against George Galloway - no way would Andy Burnham do that..
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    MaxPB said:

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

    Yeah it's completely ridiculous. Of the two approaches at least the government one makes sense.
    Labour doesn't need this to make sense, it just needs to oppose the Government on here so it looks like it cares (yes we know in reality that they don't).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,454

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cakeism:

    NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

    True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

    It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

    I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.
    I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?
    I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

    What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

    When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

    I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.
    Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.
    The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

    Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

    And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).
    The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.
    Rules such as?

    If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

    The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

    Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

    This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.
    I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

    A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).
    It's been interesting watching Euro-Twitter tuning Dawn Butler into a hero for ethical politics.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465

    Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

    Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

    Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

    FFS.

    I know OGH loves SKS, but he has had so many open goals that he has missed, he is just not a good politician.
    That may be true, but open goals are a target rich environment when you have a cretin like Bozo as PM. You don't have to be Marcus Rashford to miss one once in a while when so many are presented on a daily basis.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    For SPOTY bettors, a reminder of Tom Daley’s story


    ‘Tom Daley was:
    14 when he went to his first Olympics.
    15 when he first became world champion.
    17 when his dad and mentor Rob died from a brain tumour.
    18 when he won London 2012 bronze.
    22 when he won Rio bronze.
    27 when he won #Tokyo2020  gold.’

    https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1419570498812485632?s=21

    How can he not win?

    He wins. And bravo

    Daley should win the Sports Personality of the Year Award on the straightforward grounds that he is unusually personable compared with most single-minded results-driven sportspeople
    Not being personable was no hindrance to Nigel Mansell, or Andy mumbling Murray.
This discussion has been closed.