(((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.
Yeah it's completely stupid. They went from saying no to vaccine passports to testing instead and now they're saying vaccines + negative tests to get into a nightclub. It's completely idiotic. I understand what the government is trying to achieve with vaccine passports. Removing the negative testing aspect forced people into the vaccine funnel. Having negative tests + vaccines as mandatory to get in will just mean people won't bother as they may not have done a test that evening.
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.
Dawn Butler is a fairly poor MP significantly over promoted by Corbyn from loyalty (like much of the actual cabinet), that is separate from the issues of the PM being addicted to lying and the HoC rules failing.
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
That's the nicest thing I've heard today. Are you alright?
(((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.
If the Universities are going to require double vax for Halls of residence or lectures they really need to say so now so that potential students can both get their first vaccination and have sufficient time before the start of term for their second one. Basically students will have about 3 weeks to get that first vaccination.
Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.
Starmer...hes clean through....the keeper is distracted by a lady in the crowd with big boobies...its an open goal....he surely can't miss from here......i don't believe it, he's hit the corner flag.....
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.
Starmer...hes clean through....the keeper is distracted by a lady in the crowd with big boobies...its an open goal....he surely can't miss from here......i don't believe it, he's hit the corner flag.....
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.
I partially agree - this kind of thing is not new in hot weather - but the articles have been somewhat contradicting all the usual health and safety warnings about going swimming in cold lakes etc etc. Normalising it must have some effect.
I've done more dangerous things than swimming in a lake but they were perhaps more obviously dangerous, which is perhaps the problem here.
Mind you, I suppose everyone is going to be jumping off 10m boards and launching themselves off rocks on bicycles now (get yourself a dropper post, Mathieu!)
No10 spokesperson says any fall in Covid cases in the UK is “obviously encouraging” but adds: “We should still expect to see a rise in cases following the move to Step 4 last week.”
(((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.
If the Universities are going to require double vax for Halls of residence or lectures they really need to say so now so that potential students can both get their first vaccination and have sufficient time before the start of term for their second one. Basically students will have about 3 weeks to get that first vaccination.
Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.
Given that a lot of Universities will be opening mid September it's already too late to insist on both vaccinations.
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..
I wouldn’t be so sure. It’d be an opportunity to prove he could slay the GG monster, which would further boost his leadership credentials.
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.)
The climbing that has been introduced to the Olympics is essentially just vertical gymnastics, which is no worse than hanging off some rings (and is arguably more measurable).
Under Keir Starmer, Labour’s stance on NHS pay is unclear; Shadow Cabinet members have variously called for a 2.1%, 12.5%, and 15% pay rise, with different ministers backing and rejecting a nurses’ strike.
Stand, probably. The question is how the hell does he campaign now that all the big social media sites have essentially neutered him? He's reliant on the MSM making the same mistakes as previously in giving him free publicity, and even then all that publicity will be fiercely negative. Or in a new site with a more liberal attitude coming along that takes enough market share away from FB/Twitter/Instagram to be meaningful, and the Dems not legislating it out of existence on sheer principle.
Although doesn’t it make you at all uncomfortable that private companies can seriously restrict the ability of a bona fide* candidate for the US presidency to campaign in equal terms?
On Leon’s mellowing, it’s not often I agree with him, but after all he’s been through I was also really moved by Tom Daley’s gold this am. Sporting moment of the year for me - and that includes England getting to the final of the Euros.
(((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.
If the Universities are going to require double vax for Halls of residence or lectures they really need to say so now so that potential students can both get their first vaccination and have sufficient time before the start of term for their second one. Basically students will have about 3 weeks to get that first vaccination.
Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.
Given that a lot of Universities will be opening mid September it's already too late to insist on both vaccinations.
A lot of students will have had their first one's already. But yes, if you add on the fact that it takes about 3 weeks for the vaccine to be fully effective time is extremely tight. There was an Education Minister (I think) on this morning talking about adoptions etc but she was asked about it and suggested it might be under consideration. The Universities should be acting themselves on this or they may well risk being sued by those unfortunate enough to be infected if they prove to be one of the unlucky ones.
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.
Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.
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.
I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?
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.
Oh come on! You don't have to be a fan of Boris to wonder whether Starmer is ever going to put the ball into the net.
If Boris was as much of a cretin as you make out, you'd think he should be polling like Corbyn - rather than Starmer polling like Corbyn.
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.
OGH is a LD
Yes but still possible to like SKS though. I quite like SKS even though I am a moderate Tory, mainly because I think he is intelligent and largely credible, which is a massive improvement on his predecessor, even though he is still getting a lot of stuff wrong. He is also not a lying, bumbling twat like the current leader of the Conservative Party.
Under Keir Starmer, Labour’s stance on NHS pay is unclear; Shadow Cabinet members have variously called for a 2.1%, 12.5%, and 15% pay rise, with different ministers backing and rejecting a nurses’ strike.
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.
Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.
Surely more to do with the fairly token presence of MPs actually in the House?
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.
I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?
Yes
Clause VII. Party officers and statutory officers 1. Party officers A. Leader and deputy leader i. There shall be a leader and deputy leader of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader and deputy leader of the PLP. ii. The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4 Clause II below, at a Party conference convened in accordance with clause VI above.
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.
I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?
Yes
Clause VII. Party officers and statutory officers 1. Party officers A. Leader and deputy leader i. There shall be a leader and deputy leader of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader and deputy leader of the PLP. ii. The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4 Clause II below, at a Party conference convened in accordance with clause VI above.
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.
I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?
Yes, because the wording is along the lines Of ‘elected from among the members of the PLP.’
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."
"Papers" are already required for more than half of most people's total lifetime nightclub visits...
(((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.
If the Universities are going to require double vax for Halls of residence or lectures they really need to say so now so that potential students can both get their first vaccination and have sufficient time before the start of term for their second one. Basically students will have about 3 weeks to get that first vaccination.
Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.
Given that a lot of Universities will be opening mid September it's already too late to insist on both vaccinations.
A lot of students will have had their first one's already. But yes, if you add on the fact that it takes about 3 weeks for the vaccine to be fully effective time is extremely tight. There was an Education Minister (I think) on this morning talking about adoptions etc but she was asked about it and suggested it might be under consideration. The Universities should be acting themselves on this or they may well risk being sued by those unfortunate enough to be infected if they prove to be one of the unlucky ones.
And if you haven't had your first vaccination yet?
Now I can see the reason why you may insist upon dual vaccination but in reality it's too late to insist on it, if you really wanted to do that you needed to do it as soon as it was opened up to 18 year olds.
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.
Oh come on! You don't have to be a fan of Boris to wonder whether Starmer is ever going to put the ball into the net.
If Boris was as much of a cretin as you make out, you'd think he should be polling like Corbyn - rather than Starmer polling like Corbyn.
Sadly for the long term future of the Conservative Party, the electorate will almost inevitably catch up with those of us that have always thought Boris Johnson is a liability, unless of course he stands down to spend more time with his family, or whomever he likes to spend time with by then.
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.
I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?
Yes
Clause VII. Party officers and statutory officers 1. Party officers A. Leader and deputy leader i. There shall be a leader and deputy leader of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader and deputy leader of the PLP. ii. The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4 Clause II below, at a Party conference convened in accordance with clause VI above.
So what would happen if they didn’t have any MPs?
I suspect the rules would be changed well before that situation occurred as they surveyed the commons and went - we have only X sane options and they aren't interested.
So far, however, Biden officials are encouraged by the hospitalization and mortality rates in the U.K., which have stayed relatively low even as case rates have soared. That diminishes the already remote possibility of business and school closures similar to the kind that upended daily life across the country last year.
Children's minister Vicky Ford on @BBCr4today refusing to rule out making double jabbing for university students a precondition of access to lectures and accommodation halls......
No.10 very much not killing off this story.
"We obviously reserve the right to protect the public, and reduce transmission....We are still looking at the scope for vaccination certifications
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.
No chance. It's only 29 months until the Iowa caucus and there isn't even an indictment yet.
There are only two reasons he won't run (and probably win) in 2024:
1. He's dead. (This my preferred option.)
2. That streak of watery jizz Kushner talks him out of it.
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."
"Papers" are already required for more than half of most people's total lifetime nightclub visits...
People are soooo fighting the last war over this. Big govt knows exactly who and where you are whenever you carry your phone, and if it wants facial recognition on every street corner it'll have it.
(((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.
If the Universities are going to require double vax for Halls of residence or lectures they really need to say so now so that potential students can both get their first vaccination and have sufficient time before the start of term for their second one. Basically students will have about 3 weeks to get that first vaccination.
Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.
Given that a lot of Universities will be opening mid September it's already too late to insist on both vaccinations.
A lot of students will have had their first one's already. But yes, if you add on the fact that it takes about 3 weeks for the vaccine to be fully effective time is extremely tight. There was an Education Minister (I think) on this morning talking about adoptions etc but she was asked about it and suggested it might be under consideration. The Universities should be acting themselves on this or they may well risk being sued by those unfortunate enough to be infected if they prove to be one of the unlucky ones.
And if you haven't had your first vaccination yet?
Now I can see the reason why you may insist upon dual vaccination but in reality it's too late to insist on it, if you really wanted to do that you needed to do it as soon as it was opened up to 18 year olds.
I think pragmatically the Universities will be looking for undertakings in respect of the second jab. The extent to which they do really depends on how fast they clarify the position. Today would be a good day to do so.
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.
Oh come on! You don't have to be a fan of Boris to wonder whether Starmer is ever going to put the ball into the net.
If Boris was as much of a cretin as you make out, you'd think he should be polling like Corbyn - rather than Starmer polling like Corbyn.
Sadly for the long term future of the Conservative Party, the electorate will almost inevitably catch up with those of us that have always thought Boris Johnson is a liability, unless of course he stands down to spend more time with his family, or whomever he likes to spend time with by then.
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.
OGH is a LD
He may be but he does love SKS, and he hates BJ, which is why we get header after header criticising BJ and nothing about Labours terrible polling performance ove the last 6 months.
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.
I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?
Yes
Clause VII. Party officers and statutory officers 1. Party officers A. Leader and deputy leader i. There shall be a leader and deputy leader of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader and deputy leader of the PLP. ii. The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4 Clause II below, at a Party conference convened in accordance with clause VI above.
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.
OGH is a LD
He may be but he does love SKS, and he hates BJ, which is why we get header after header criticising BJ and nothing about Labours terrible polling performance ove the last 6 months.
Write one. Just carefully check it for leavers' apostrophe's before submission.
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.
Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.
Surely more to do with the fairly token presence of MPs actually in the House?
No, even pre-Covid. Check Youtube and compare PMQs under Theresa May and Boris. I imagine CCHQ finally twigged (45 years after they started it) that barracking the opposition meant the PM had trouble hearing the question. Think back to Theresa May having to lean in to the speakers in the front bench. Trouble answering too, as the temptation, especially when new to the job is to try and shout over the noise, rather than speak normally and trust the microphones will pick up what is said.
Children's minister Vicky Ford on @BBCr4today refusing to rule out making double jabbing for university students a precondition of access to lectures and accommodation halls......
No.10 very much not killing off this story.
"We obviously reserve the right to protect the public, and reduce transmission....We are still looking at the scope for vaccination certifications
The variation in the language of this article between “England” and “the UK” - in discussing an approach to childhood vaccination which is UK-wide - is fascinating.
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.
Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.
Surely more to do with the fairly token presence of MPs actually in the House?
No, even pre-Covid. Check Youtube and compare PMQs under Theresa May and Boris. I imagine CCHQ finally twigged (45 years after they started it) that barracking the opposition meant the PM had trouble hearing the question. Think back to Theresa May having to lean in to the speakers in the front bench. Trouble answering too, as the temptation, especially when new to the job is to try and shout over the noise, rather than speak normally and trust the microphones will pick up what is said.
It also can have a major effect on your ability to concentrate and deliver that prepared "off the cuff" zinger. I suspect Boris is one of those who finds the noise simply distracting.
Children's minister Vicky Ford on @BBCr4today refusing to rule out making double jabbing for university students a precondition of access to lectures and accommodation halls......
No.10 very much not killing off this story.
"We obviously reserve the right to protect the public, and reduce transmission....We are still looking at the scope for vaccination certifications
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.
OGH is a LD
He may be but he does love SKS, and he hates BJ, which is why we get header after header criticising BJ and nothing about Labours terrible polling performance ove the last 6 months.
Boris is Prime Minister. That matters, both in running the country and in betting on politics.
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.
Dawn Butler is a fairly poor MP significantly over promoted by Corbyn from loyalty (like much of the actual cabinet), that is separate from the issues of the PM being addicted to lying and the HoC rules failing.
I think "fairly poor" is a bit of a mild TBH. That most of her alleged 'lies' were fairly nit-picky and sourced from a Twitter viral video says quite a lot. If she wanted to make that point, there is better material around.
My point is about the attachment of Euro-twitter, and the EU Brussels media, to anything that will diss the UK.
The serious point is that a brown-nose media will play into EuCos worst tendencies, which will undermine the likelihood of the EU evolving into a functioning organisation. That will cost a lot of people.
Stand, probably. The question is how the hell does he campaign now that all the big social media sites have essentially neutered him? He's reliant on the MSM making the same mistakes as previously in giving him free publicity, and even then all that publicity will be fiercely negative. Or in a new site with a more liberal attitude coming along that takes enough market share away from FB/Twitter/Instagram to be meaningful, and the Dems not legislating it out of existence on sheer principle.
Although doesn’t it make you at all uncomfortable that private companies can seriously restrict the ability of a bona fide* candidate for the US presidency to campaign in equal terms?
* it seems odd to use that phrase in this case!
I'm pretty sure any such restrictions will be lifted come the presidential primary season.
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.
Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.
Surely more to do with the fairly token presence of MPs actually in the House?
No, even pre-Covid. Check Youtube and compare PMQs under Theresa May and Boris. I imagine CCHQ finally twigged (45 years after they started it) that barracking the opposition meant the PM had trouble hearing the question. Think back to Theresa May having to lean in to the speakers in the front bench. Trouble answering too, as the temptation, especially when new to the job is to try and shout over the noise, rather than speak normally and trust the microphones will pick up what is said.
It also can have a major effect on your ability to concentrate and deliver that prepared "off the cuff" zinger. I suspect Boris is one of those who finds the noise simply distracting.
Eszpecially in the light of what we know about covid and what it can do to the ears in terms of deafness. Possibly his often miserable performance is partly because he can't so easily pick out the question against the mating-baboon chorus from his backbenchers.
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.
Dawn Butler is a fairly poor MP significantly over promoted by Corbyn from loyalty (like much of the actual cabinet), that is separate from the issues of the PM being addicted to lying and the HoC rules failing.
I think "fairly poor" is a bit of a mild TBH.
My point is about the attachment of Euro-twitter, and the EU Brussels media, to anything that will diss the UK.
The serious point is that a brown-nose media will play into EuCos worst tendencies, which will undermine the likelihood of the EU evolving into a functioning organisation. That will cost a lot of people.
My point was that obsession with partisanship and the EU distracts us from improving the situation.
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.’
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.
On a tangent, I believe Andy Murray is much more interesting than we see and the mumbling is an intentional act. As a young player he was once interviewed and mentioned in football he supports 'Scotland, and whoever plays England of course' as a joke. But his rather dry tone and the media's lack of subtlety meant that there were a spate of headlines about his rude Scottish arrogance. He decided after to be as un-newsworthy as possible in future so he could focus on the tennis.
John Bull is currently posting a twitter thread that started on Supermarket logistics (which says nothing new for anyone who has been around here a while)
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.
I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?
Yes
Clause VII. Party officers and statutory officers 1. Party officers A. Leader and deputy leader i. There shall be a leader and deputy leader of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader and deputy leader of the PLP. ii. The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4 Clause II below, at a Party conference convened in accordance with clause VI above.
So what would happen if they didn’t have any MPs?
Arguments over the leadership would not then be foremost among their problems.
Just going back to the social media response to Tom Daley’s gold
Here is Boris:
‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’
Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad
Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’
Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot
Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later
‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’
That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm
Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).
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.
Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.
Surely more to do with the fairly token presence of MPs actually in the House?
No, even pre-Covid. Check Youtube and compare PMQs under Theresa May and Boris. I imagine CCHQ finally twigged (45 years after they started it) that barracking the opposition meant the PM had trouble hearing the question. Think back to Theresa May having to lean in to the speakers in the front bench. Trouble answering too, as the temptation, especially when new to the job is to try and shout over the noise, rather than speak normally and trust the microphones will pick up what is said.
It also can have a major effect on your ability to concentrate and deliver that prepared "off the cuff" zinger. I suspect Boris is one of those who finds the noise simply distracting.
Eszpecially in the light of what we know about covid and what it can do to the ears in terms of deafness. Possibly his often miserable performance is partly because he can't so easily pick out the question against the mating-baboon chorus from his backbenchers.
I wondered about that too but as has been pointed out even before Covid he seemed to want the noise down a bit.
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.
OGH is a LD
He may be but he does love SKS, and he hates BJ, which is why we get header after header criticising BJ and nothing about Labours terrible polling performance ove the last 6 months.
That, and no one else giving enough of a damn to write one.
Just going back to the social media response to Tom Daley’s gold
Here is Boris:
‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’
Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad
Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’
Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot
Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later
‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’
That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm
Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).
If slick personality driven social media with the most likes / retweets won GEs, PM Corbyn would currently be praising the Chinese team for their golds and be posting about looking forward to the Cubans in the boxing and athletics....as examples of how collective socialism can stand up to the oppressive capitalist pigs that are Team USA.
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.’
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.
On a tangent, I believe Andy Murray is much more interesting than we see and the mumbling is an intentional act. As a young player he was once interviewed and mentioned in football he supports 'Scotland, and whoever plays England of course' as a joke. But his rather dry tone and the media's lack of subtlety meant that there were a spate of headlines about his rude Scottish arrogance. He decided after to be as un-newsworthy as possible in future so he could focus on the tennis.
I think it is a little more complex than that. He is an outstanding athlete, but almost certainly (like many athletes) on the very introverted end of the Jung/Myers Briggs introvert-extrovert spectrum. His focus and "never give up" attitude is highly commendable, but much like Nigel Mansell I doubt he is ever life and soul of the party, even if he goes to them, which he probably doesn't.
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.
Oh come on! You don't have to be a fan of Boris to wonder whether Starmer is ever going to put the ball into the net.
If Boris was as much of a cretin as you make out, you'd think he should be polling like Corbyn - rather than Starmer polling like Corbyn.
Sadly for the long term future of the Conservative Party, the electorate will almost inevitably catch up with those of us that have always thought Boris Johnson is a liability, unless of course he stands down to spend more time with his family, or whomever he likes to spend time with by then.
Of course they will Nigel, of course they will. 😉
I am guess David that you haven't yet? Give it time young man, give it time!
Its Russia....but they are officially banned, so its the "Russian Olympic Committee".. basically athletes that can prove they are detached enough from Russia to not be part of the state sponsored doping e.g. most now will live and train full time in say the US or Europe and so get drug tested like those home athletes.
However we know its still a big advantage if you doped up to a certain point then stop. Its thought to be widespread in rugby for example, put on the size with the old roids when younger, then maintain that bulk as a pro and clean.
Its Russia....but they are officially banne, so its Russian Olympic Committee... basically athletes that cannprove they are detached enough from Russia.
(((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.
If the Universities are going to require double vax for Halls of residence or lectures they really need to say so now so that potential students can both get their first vaccination and have sufficient time before the start of term for their second one. Basically students will have about 3 weeks to get that first vaccination.
Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.
Makes spliff sharing a lot healthier and safer too.
Just going back to the social media response to Tom Daley’s gold
Here is Boris:
‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’
Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad
Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’
Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot
Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later
‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’
That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm
Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).
If slick personality driven social media with the most likes / retweets won GEs, PM Corbyn would currently be praising the Chinese team for their golds and be posting about looking forward to the Cubans in the boxing and athletics....as examples of how collective socialism can stand up to the oppressive capitalist pigs that are Team USA.
No, I think you’re missing something. Burnham is genuinely good at this ‘channeling the moment’ thing. Corbyn was good at narcissistic partisan sniping, which just pleased the home crowd. They are very different
One wins over centrists, and thus elections, the other alienates. And this social media stuff matters, enormously
That's been obvious from here (5000 miles away) since about early January, exactly how stupid are the Democrats (and yes it's not an easy fix but it needs to be done)
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!
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 is the big difference between the USA and Britain.
In Brtain, Gen X is making all the weather. Cameron (born 1966) and Clegg (born 1967) were Gen X.
Boris (born 1964) and Farage (born 1964) are both Gen X. Dominic Cummings was born in 1971.
You could say Brexit was delivered by Gen X as it was the 40 and 50-somethings that tipped the vote towards Leave. They are also the ones who gave Boris his majority - but 22 years earlier, they were the ones who put Blair in power.
I think it's to do with Britain's baby boom being delayed by grim post-war austerity and it didn't really happen till the 1960's. In the US, the biggest generations are the Boomers and the Millenials. But in the UK, the biggest generation is Gen X.
Just going back to the social media response to Tom Daley’s gold
Here is Boris:
‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’
Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad
Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’
Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot
Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later
‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’
That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm
Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).
Shit, I almost found myself liking a @Leon post again. That must be three times today! What is happening? Have I entered an alternative universe? Have the aliens assimilated his PB account?
Just going back to the social media response to Tom Daley’s gold
Here is Boris:
‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’
Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad
Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’
Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot
Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later
‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’
That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm
Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).
Shit, I almost found myself liking a @Leon post again. That must be three times today! What is happening? Have I entered an alternative universe? Have the aliens assimilated his PB account?
I promise I will revert to sardonic aggression or bibulous surrealism by this evening
Just going back to the social media response to Tom Daley’s gold
Here is Boris:
‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’
Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad
Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’
Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot
Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later
‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’
That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm
Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).
Shit, I almost found myself liking a @Leon post again. That must be three times today! What is happening? Have I entered an alternative universe? Have the aliens assimilated his PB account?
Don’t worry. I went the whole hog and actually gave it a like. I try to adopt the principle, it’s for the post rather than the poster, but don’t always apply that consistently. But in this case, the post was both humane and insightful, so a like it is.
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.
No chance. It's only 29 months until the Iowa caucus and there isn't even an indictment yet.
There are only two reasons he won't run (and probably win) in 2024:
1. He's dead. (This my preferred option.)
2. That streak of watery jizz Kushner talks him out of it.
I thought you were opposed to killing dumb animals?
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 “debates” would quickly become “you’re a liar!” “No you are!”
‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’
That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm
Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).
It sounds more like a bad nineteenth century translation of a Jules Verne novel.
And I say that as somebody who doesn’t actually dislike Burnham, although I don’t buy the current hype.
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.
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.
When was their last serious disorder in Westminster? Has there been any in the last century?
I guess we have incidents like a couple of demos in the Chamber (eg the foxhunting powder puff thrown at Tony Blair, and didn't we have a couple of women jumping down from the public gallery?).
On DB, I wonder if she will repeat her allegations outside Parliament where she can be help to account? There's at least some truth in them, so here may be mileage in it.
Comments
Are you alright?
Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/26/covid-young-people-england-virus-spread-uk
I've done more dangerous things than swimming in a lake but they were perhaps more obviously dangerous, which is perhaps the problem here.
Mind you, I suppose everyone is going to be jumping off 10m boards and launching themselves off rocks on bicycles now (get yourself a dropper post, Mathieu!)
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1419618911348137993?s=20
Under Keir Starmer, Labour’s stance on NHS pay is unclear; Shadow Cabinet members have variously called for a 2.1%, 12.5%, and 15% pay rise, with different ministers backing and rejecting a nurses’ strike.
https://order-order.com/2021/07/26/labour-nhs-pay-policy-confusion/
* it seems odd to use that phrase in this case!
Well what’s the bloody point in the vaccine / vaccine pass then?
Just get off the stage mate.
If Boris was as much of a cretin as you make out, you'd think he should be polling like Corbyn - rather than Starmer polling like Corbyn.
It will presumably evolve but still. Lol
Clause VII.
Party officers and statutory officers
1. Party officers
A. Leader and deputy leader
i. There shall be a leader and deputy leader
of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader
and deputy leader of the PLP.
ii. The leader and deputy leader of the Party
shall be elected or re-elected from among
Commons members of the PLP in
accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4
Clause II below, at a Party conference
convened in accordance with clause VI
above.
Now I can see the reason why you may insist upon dual vaccination but in reality it's too late to insist on it, if you really wanted to do that you needed to do it as soon as it was opened up to 18 year olds.
So far, however, Biden officials are encouraged by the hospitalization and mortality rates in the U.K., which have stayed relatively low even as case rates have soared. That diminishes the already remote possibility of business and school closures similar to the kind that upended daily life across the country last year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/07/26/delta-uk-biden-covid/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
No.10 very much not killing off this story.
"We obviously reserve the right to protect the public, and reduce transmission....We are still looking at the scope for vaccination certifications
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1419623845485584387?s=20
There are only two reasons he won't run (and probably win) in 2024:
1. He's dead. (This my preferred option.)
2. That streak of watery jizz Kushner talks him out of it.
https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1419621256098422785?s=20
Its not going to even last 6 months is it.
My point is about the attachment of Euro-twitter, and the EU Brussels media, to anything that will diss the UK.
The serious point is that a brown-nose media will play into EuCos worst tendencies, which will undermine the likelihood of the EU evolving into a functioning organisation. That will cost a lot of people.
What is however interesting (and starts at https://twitter.com/garius/status/1419612068047728644 ) is his overview of Tea and World War II
Here is Boris:
‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’
Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad
Sir Kir ‘royale’ Starmer:
‘It’s a Magic Monday for #TeamGB at #Tokyo2020
🥇 @adam_peaty 🥇 @TomDaley1994 🥇 @mattydiver 🥇 @TomPid 🥈 @Lixsanyee
Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’
Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot
Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later
‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’
That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm
Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2021/jul/26/tokyo-2020-olympics-full-medal-table
"Chinese Taipei" is a designated term being used in various international organizations and tournaments for the representation of Taiwan since 1979.
However we know its still a big advantage if you doped up to a certain point then stop. Its thought to be widespread in rugby for example, put on the size with the old roids when younger, then maintain that bulk as a pro and clean.
Still, Yorkshire is now ahead of them, anyway...
Ta
The state still being subject to an Olympic ban for doping.
‘We’re f---ed’: Dems fear turnout catastrophe from GOP voting laws
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/26/democrats-gop-voting-laws-crisis-500726
One wins over centrists, and thus elections, the other alienates. And this social media stuff matters, enormously
I can accept that punishing them all would be harsh, but it's a bloody farce they can enter team events.
In Brtain, Gen X is making all the weather. Cameron (born 1966) and Clegg (born 1967) were Gen X.
Boris (born 1964) and Farage (born 1964) are both Gen X. Dominic Cummings was born in 1971.
You could say Brexit was delivered by Gen X as it was the 40 and 50-somethings that tipped the vote towards Leave. They are also the ones who gave Boris his majority - but 22 years earlier, they were the ones who put Blair in power.
I think it's to do with Britain's baby boom being delayed by grim post-war austerity and it didn't really happen till the 1960's. In the US, the biggest generations are the Boomers and the Millenials. But in the UK, the biggest generation is Gen X.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/why-russia-banned-olympics-tokyo-b1889851.html
Looks like Labour is going up - but what is still in question is the Tory share
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1419574109722251265
And I say that as somebody who doesn’t actually dislike Burnham, although I don’t buy the current hype.
[The PM is full of shit. And she's hardly the epitome of integrity given the Wikipedia nonsense of yesteryear.]
If it was Butler, a bit rich for her to accuse anyone else of lying. It’s as if Johnson had described Corbyn as an oversexed serial bed hopper.
I guess we have incidents like a couple of demos in the Chamber (eg the foxhunting powder puff thrown at Tony Blair, and didn't we have a couple of women jumping down from the public gallery?).
I think that could be one measure.
Comparing to the punch-ups in other places, suggests that it works. eg Fun in Tokyo in 1960:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpY_CO2Zdhk
On DB, I wonder if she will repeat her allegations outside Parliament where she can be help to account? There's at least some truth in them, so here may be mileage in it.