Traditional LAB/CON switchers won't be the primary Tory targets in the next election. Firstly, because the Labour vote is close to its extremely sticky floor of around 20%, and most of those voters are never going to switch to the Conservatives. Secondly, because the bulk of voters who have left the Conservatives since 2017 have gone to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party, it makes far more sense to target those voters who have at least demonstrated that they're willing to vote Conservative in a pinch.
My expectation is that the Tories will continue to squeeze the Brexit Party vote by arguing that only Boris Johnson can deliver Brexit, and squeeze Tory-LD switchers by arguing that Johnson is better than Corbyn. And, of course, coming up with some generous post-Brexit spending pledges to squeeze both.
Furthermore, you might almost think that having Parliament force an extension which Johnson can credibly argue to Leave voters he didn't want and did everything he could to prevent, giving him an extra couple months to hold an election without worrying about a no deal Brexit in the middle of the campaign while reinforcing the People VS Parliament narrative he needs to win back Conservatives who have gone over to the Brexit Party, plays right into his hands.
I think the path for Johnson is very narrow, but I wouldn't write his chances off.
Good post. I am in the latter group of disaffected Cons supporters you describe. Plus it has been my contention that post-October 31 would be fatal for Boris. Perhaps I am overestimating the resolution of some Brexiters while underestimating Nigel's efficacy. The latter though a dangerous path.
Doesn't it make you pause and think that everyone here saying that post-October 31 would be fatal is a remainer who wishes it to be fatal?
I don't see anyone who supports Boris suggesting that an extension forced by his opponents would hurt him rather than play into his hands.
Interesting - and last time it was a majority government! "William IV's dismissal of Lord Melbourne's Whig government in November 1834 was the last time a British monarch tried to assert political authority by bringing down a government that had majority support in the House of Commons."
This was in this week's NS article about Dom and his vision:
Victory for the Tories lies in winning seats far down the list of Labour targets, to make up for the 30 or so MPs they could lose in Scotland and in Remain constituencies in England. For Johnson to win a majority, you have to go about 60 seats down the list of Labour seats that the Tories could win, which is when you get to Easington in the north-east of England.
Easington? Is Dom serious? This all sounds a bit far fetched to me.
Easington is 197 on the Labour defence list, it's the 60th safest seat they have. NS are reading the list upside down
LOL!!
Don't think anyone's suggested Labour will go down to fewer than 60 seats remaining. What's next, in order to gain any seats the Tories need to be winning places like Liverpool Walton?
Someone should tell the NS that Labour's internal polling (apparently) shows them at risk of losing 100 seats.....
Why are Labour so afraid of a General Election? The puzzle continues. 😂
This is the best policy any government in Britain has come up with in the entire history of ever. It solves the country's biggest social and economic problem without costing anyone any money.
I suppose the voters will hate it.
Quite. Almost everywhere else in the world is much more liberal with planning laws with respect to extensions.
You need to keep exceptions for AONB and listed buildings, and ensure that appropriate permission is still required for adding extra dwellings rather than extending existing units.
Planning reform is one of the most urgent issues facing the U.K., but as you say it has the potential to be hugely unpopular. (As with most of the “too-difficult” pile, see social care, welfare reform, tertiary education funding and many more).
Traditional LAB/CON switchers won't be the primary Tory targets in the next election. Firstly, because the Labour vote is close to its extremely sticky floor of around 20%, and most of those voters are never going to switch to the Conservatives. Secondly, because the bulk of voters who have left the Conservatives since 2017 have gone to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party, it makes far more sense to target those voters who have at least demonstrated that they're willing to vote Conservative in a pinch.
My expectation is that the Tories will continue to squeeze the Brexit Party vote by arguing that only Boris Johnson can deliver Brexit, and squeeze Tory-LD switchers by arguing that Johnson is better than Corbyn. And, of course, coming up with some generous post-Brexit spending pledges to squeeze both.
Furthermore, you might almost think that having Parliament force an extension which Johnson can credibly argue to Leave voters he didn't want and did everything he could to prevent, giving him an extra couple months to hold an election without worrying about a no deal Brexit in the middle of the campaign while reinforcing the People VS Parliament narrative he needs to win back Conservatives who have gone over to the Brexit Party, plays right into his hands.
I think the path for Johnson is very narrow, but I wouldn't write his chances off.
Good post. I am in the latter group of disaffected Cons supporters you describe. Plus it has been my contention that post-October 31 would be fatal for Boris. Perhaps I am overestimating the resolution of some Brexiters while underestimating Nigel's efficacy. The latter though a dangerous path.
Doesn't it make you pause and think that everyone here saying that post-October 31 would be fatal is a remainer who wishes it to be fatal?
I don't see anyone who supports Boris suggesting that an extension forced by his opponents would hurt him rather than play into his hands.
That is because to support Boris you have to have had a political lobotomy
Look how badly Ireland, Scotland and northern England do on "irradiation" i.e. sun. Practically unique in the world in their sunlessness, only central south China and the Aleutian Islands are worse.
That is quite impressive in a bad way. Explains the Mancunian character.
+++
Also worth noting that on sun hours, the bleakness of northern Ireland and western Scotland are only matched by the desolations of Iceland, Newfoundland, Antarctica, and central northern Siberia.
OUTER northern Siberia is, in sun hours, nicer than Glasgow.
Visit Scotland should use this in their advertising. "Come to Scotland, about as pleasant as Novaya Zemlya".
It is still the same bollox as last thread. For someone who lives in the sweltering concrete cesspit of London it really is a hoot.
You make a typically elegant and perceptive point, malcolm, nonetheless you are not at liberty to dispute the facts. The chart shows that western Scotland gets the same amount of sun as Yakutia, Siberia. Literally.
I venture this might explain the tendency to mild irritability in your character.
LOL, I am never irritable except when confronted by stupidity ( common on here ). We certainly do not get enough sun, but when we do it is exceedingly pleasant , none of your mugginess and crap and no madding crowds to spoil your happiness. I have lived down south and the little extra sun did not make up for the horrible amount of traffic and people. It made it almost impossible to enjoy holidays except in your own garden. PS: Yakutia must be a green and pleasant place PPS: Sun is shining as I post, trees are turning and a fine autumn beckons
I'd rather Fort William in a hoolie than Oxford in a heatwave
The Dismissal! The Dismissal! When the Australian PM was dismissed in the 1970's by the Governor-General! It's the same principle and it happened in the 1970s!
Not really, he thinks its an amusing comment on the NI border, whereas the fact the government needs extraordinary measures to prevent attempts to blow them up is not really a joking matter
The NI border needs extraordinary measures to prevent attempts to blow them up
Traditional LAB/CON switchers won't be the primary Tory targets in the next election. Firstly, because the Labour vote is close to its extremely sticky floor of around 20%, and most of those voters are never going to switch to the Conservatives. Secondly, because the bulk of voters who have left the Conservatives since 2017 have gone to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party, it makes far more sense to target those voters who have at least demonstrated that they're willing to vote Conservative in a pinch.
My expectation is that the Tories will continue to squeeze the Brexit Party vote by arguing that only Boris Johnson can deliver Brexit, and squeeze Tory-LD switchers by arguing that Johnson is better than Corbyn. And, of course, coming up with some generous post-Brexit spending pledges to squeeze both.
Furthermore, you might almost think that having Parliament force an extension which Johnson can credibly argue to Leave voters he didn't want and did everything he could to prevent, giving him an extra couple months to hold an election without worrying about a no deal Brexit in the middle of the campaign while reinforcing the People VS Parliament narrative he needs to win back Conservatives who have gone over to the Brexit Party, plays right into his hands.
I think the path for Johnson is very narrow, but I wouldn't write his chances off.
Good post. I am in the latter group of disaffected Cons supporters you describe. Plus it has been my contention that post-October 31 would be fatal for Boris. Perhaps I am overestimating the resolution of some Brexiters while underestimating Nigel's efficacy. The latter though a dangerous path.
Doesn't it make you pause and think that everyone here saying that post-October 31 would be fatal is a remainer who wishes it to be fatal?
I don't see anyone who supports Boris suggesting that an extension forced by his opponents would hurt him rather than play into his hands.
When Theresa May was forced by her opponents to delay Brexit she was doomed. Hard to see how Boris escapes the same fate.
Look how badly Ireland, Scotland and northern England do on "irradiation" i.e. sun. Practically unique in the world in their sunlessness, only central south China and the Aleutian Islands are worse.
That is quite impressive in a bad way. Explains the Mancunian character.
+++
Also worth noting that on sun hours, the bleakness of northern Ireland and western Scotland are only matched by the desolations of Iceland, Newfoundland, Antarctica, and central northern Siberia.
OUTER northern Siberia is, in sun hours, nicer than Glasgow.
Visit Scotland should use this in their advertising. "Come to Scotland, about as pleasant as Novaya Zemlya".
It is still the same bollox as last thread. For someone who lives in the sweltering concrete cesspit of London it really is a hoot.
You make a typically elegant and perceptive point, malcolm, nonetheless you are not at liberty to dispute the facts. The chart shows that western Scotland gets the same amount of sun as Yakutia, Siberia. Literally.
I venture this might explain the tendency to mild irritability in your character.
LOL, I am never irritable except when confronted by stupidity ( common on here ). We certainly do not get enough sun, but when we do it is exceedingly pleasant , none of your mugginess and crap and no madding crowds to spoil your happiness. I have lived down south and the little extra sun did not make up for the horrible amount of traffic and people. It made it almost impossible to enjoy holidays except in your own garden. PS: Yakutia must be a green and pleasant place PPS: Sun is shining as I post, trees are turning and a fine autumn beckons
The inner Hebrides, on a fine summer's day, are quite possibly the most beautiful place on God's green earth. Also the food is markedly improved, as it is elsewhere in our fair British islands.
It's just that, for me, there isn't enough of these sunny days; even in relatively sunnier London I get immiserated by the grey.
As ever the ideal would be a mix. A London flat plus a nice little home in the Greek islands would suit me. Plus maybe a botlhole in Thailand. And a ranch in Arizona. I don't ask for much.
Doesn't it make you pause and think that everyone here saying that post-October 31 would be fatal is a remainer who wishes it to be fatal?.
It's not just the earnest desirings of diehard Remainers, Philip. There's speculative polling [I know] that says Boris wins big if he delivers by October 31st, but loses if he doesn't.
Traditional LAB/CON switchers won't be the primary Tory targets in the next election. Firstly, because the Labour vote is close to its extremely sticky floor of around 20%, and most of those voters are never going to switch to the Conservatives. Secondly, because the bulk of voters who have left the Conservatives since 2017 have gone to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party, it makes far more sense to target those voters who have at least demonstrated that they're willing to vote Conservative in a pinch.
My expectation is that the Tories will continue to squeeze the Brexit Party vote by arguing that only Boris Johnson can deliver Brexit, and squeeze Tory-LD switchers by arguing that Johnson is better than Corbyn. And, of course, coming up with some generous post-Brexit spending pledges to squeeze both.
Furthermore, you might almost think that having Parliament force an extension which Johnson can credibly argue to Leave voters he didn't want and did everything he could to prevent, giving him an extra couple months to hold an election without worrying about a no deal Brexit in the middle of the campaign while reinforcing the People VS Parliament narrative he needs to win back Conservatives who have gone over to the Brexit Party, plays right into his hands.
I think the path for Johnson is very narrow, but I wouldn't write his chances off.
Good post. I am in the latter group of disaffected Cons supporters you describe. Plus it has been my contention that post-October 31 would be fatal for Boris. Perhaps I am overestimating the resolution of some Brexiters while underestimating Nigel's efficacy. The latter though a dangerous path.
Doesn't it make you pause and think that everyone here saying that post-October 31 would be fatal is a remainer who wishes it to be fatal?
I don't see anyone who supports Boris suggesting that an extension forced by his opponents would hurt him rather than play into his hands.
When Theresa May was forced by her opponents to delay Brexit she was doomed. Hard to see how Boris escapes the same fate.
Theresa May wasn't forced. She voluntarily suggested, called a vote for, and then voted for an extension.
Traditional LAB/CON switchers won't be the primary Tory targets in the next election. Firstly, because the Labour vote is close to its extremely sticky floor of around 20%, and most of those voters are never going to switch to the Conservatives. Secondly, because the bulk of voters who have left the Conservatives since 2017 have gone to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party, it makes far more sense to target those voters who have at least demonstrated that they're willing to vote Conservative in a pinch.
My expectation is that the Tories will continue to squeeze the Brexit Party vote by arguing that only Boris Johnson can deliver Brexit, and squeeze Tory-LD switchers by arguing that Johnson is better than Corbyn. And, of course, coming up with some generous post-Brexit spending pledges to squeeze both.
Furthermore, you might almost think that having Parliament force an extension which Johnson can credibly argue to Leave voters he didn't want and did everything he could to prevent, giving him an extra couple months to hold an election without worrying about a no deal Brexit in the middle of the campaign while reinforcing the People VS Parliament narrative he needs to win back Conservatives who have gone over to the Brexit Party, plays right into his hands.
I think the path for Johnson is very narrow, but I wouldn't write his chances off.
Good post. I am in the latter group of disaffected Cons supporters you describe. Plus it has been my contention that post-October 31 would be fatal for Boris. Perhaps I am overestimating the resolution of some Brexiters while underestimating Nigel's efficacy. The latter though a dangerous path.
Doesn't it make you pause and think that everyone here saying that post-October 31 would be fatal is a remainer who wishes it to be fatal?
I don't see anyone who supports Boris suggesting that an extension forced by his opponents would hurt him rather than play into his hands.
That is because to support Boris you have to have had a political lobotomy
If that's the case then why would Oct or Nov make a difference to his supporters?
If women and girls reported every sexual assault, however minor, to the police, they’d be doing little else from about the age of 12 onwards. And doubtless they’d be criticised for diverting the police from “more important” crimes and/or accused of being hysterical about trivial matters. It is beyond tiresome that women have to - as a matter of routine in pretty much all walks of life - put up with chimpanzee-like behaviour from men of all types. It’d be quite nice if they’d grow up and learn some more civilized mating techniques.
Depressingly, I doubt all these stories will affect peoples’ views of Boris one bit: that he’s a priapic liar is priced in. His opponents are making the same mistake as those thinking that all those IRA stories would harm Corbyn during the last GE. Something more than “Boris is a lech” is needed.
While I agree with that, it is troubling that we have an asymmetric situation
Charlotte Easton (?) could have made these allegations public - or complained to the police - at any point in the last 20 years.
She could have done so during the #metoo campaign a couple of years ago
And yet she chooses to make a word-against-word allegation at a time it will draw the most attention and thereby benefit her career the most while potentially damaging the accused the most
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Traditional LAB/CON switchers won't be the primary Tory targets in the next election. Firstly, because the Labour vote is close to its extremely sticky floor of around 20%, and most of those voters are never going to switch to the Conservatives. Secondly, because the bulk of voters who have left the Conservatives since 2017 have gone to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party, it makes far more sense to target those voters who have at least demonstrated that they're willing to vote Conservative in a pinch.
My expectation is that the Tories will continue to squeeze the Brexit Party vote by arguing that only Boris Johnson can deliver Brexit, and squeeze Tory-LD switchers by arguing that Johnson is better than Corbyn. And, of course, coming up with some generous post-Brexit spending pledges to squeeze both.
Furthermore, you might almost think that having Parliament force an extension which Johnson can credibly argue to Leave voters he didn't want and did everything he could to prevent, giving him an extra couple months to hold an election without worrying about a no deal Brexit in the middle of the campaign while reinforcing the People VS Parliament narrative he needs to win back Conservatives who have gone over to the Brexit Party, plays right into his hands.
I think the path for Johnson is very narrow, but I wouldn't write his chances off.
Good post. I am in the latter group of disaffected Cons supporters you describe. Plus it has been my contention that post-October 31 would be fatal for Boris. Perhaps I am overestimating the resolution of some Brexiters while underestimating Nigel's efficacy. The latter though a dangerous path.
Doesn't it make you pause and think that everyone here saying that post-October 31 would be fatal is a remainer who wishes it to be fatal?
I don't see anyone who supports Boris suggesting that an extension forced by his opponents would hurt him rather than play into his hands.
Yes that is true. But I can't help feeling that Nigel would swing into action in that case (my post earlier incorrectly said "underestimate" his efficacy instead of overestimate) and at the least muddy the water for many Brexiters. The narrative is simple: he failed.
I think with Nigel against you you are in a corner if you want similar things but Nigel's vision is the purer because the purer the vision the easier the sell. No matter the reality of what's being sold.
Look how badly Ireland, Scotland and northern England do on "irradiation" i.e. sun. Practically unique in the world in their sunlessness, only central south China and the Aleutian Islands are worse.
That is quite impressive in a bad way. Explains the Mancunian character.
+++
Also worth noting that on sun hours, the bleakness of northern Ireland and western Scotland are only matched by the desolations of Iceland, Newfoundland, Antarctica, and central northern Siberia.
OUTER northern Siberia is, in sun hours, nicer than Glasgow.
Visit Scotland should use this in their advertising. "Come to Scotland, about as pleasant as Novaya Zemlya".
It is still the same bollox as last thread. For someone who lives in the sweltering concrete cesspit of London it really is a hoot.
You make a typically elegant and perceptive point, malcolm, nonetheless you are not at liberty to dispute the facts. The chart shows that western Scotland gets the same amount of sun as Yakutia, Siberia. Literally.
I venture this might explain the tendency to mild irritability in your character.
LOL, I am never irritable except when confronted by stupidity ( common on here ). We certainly do not get enough sun, but when we do it is exceedingly pleasant , none of your mugginess and crap and no madding crowds to spoil your happiness. I have lived down south and the little extra sun did not make up for the horrible amount of traffic and people. It made it almost impossible to enjoy holidays except in your own garden. PS: Yakutia must be a green and pleasant place PPS: Sun is shining as I post, trees are turning and a fine autumn beckons
I'd rather Fort William in a hoolie than Oxford in a heatwave
The climate of South Devon beats everywhere else.
Planet-wide.
North Norfolk in the winter as an arctic low steams down the North Sea
Late autumn, as Titchwell fills with migrating wildfowl and massive skeins of Pink-foot Geese sail overhead. I could give you that.
I miss most the cold frosty winters we used to get, mild and wet is really boring.
If women and girls reported every sexual assault, however minor, to the police, they’d be doing little else from about the age of 12 onwards. And doubtless they’d be criticised for diverting the police from “more important” crimes and/or accused of being hysterical about trivial matters. It is beyond tiresome that women have to - as a matter of routine in pretty much all walks of life - put up with chimpanzee-like behaviour from men of all types. It’d be quite nice if they’d grow up and learn some more civilized mating techniques.
Depressingly, I doubt all these stories will affect peoples’ views of Boris one bit: that he’s a priapic liar is priced in. His opponents are making the same mistake as those thinking that all those IRA stories would harm Corbyn during the last GE. Something more than “Boris is a lech” is needed.
While I agree with that, it is troubling that we have an asymmetric situation
Charlotte Easton (?) could have made these allegations public - or complained to the police - at any point in the last 20 years.
She could have done so during the #metoo campaign a couple of years ago
And yet she chooses to make a word-against-word allegation at a time it will draw the most attention and thereby benefit her career the most while potentially damaging the accused the most
That doesn’t seem equitable to me.
Oh, Charles; in the nicest possible manner, genuinely, do grow up!
Life is not fair. 20 years ago no-one cared about this stuff. No-one really cared 5 years ago. People like Boris got away with such behaviour because no-one cared, because they had power and women didn’t. So women put up with it. And when they are in a position to get their own back, some of them do.
Of course, it’s not fair. But it’s also not fair for women to have to put up with gross behaviour that would shame any decent man. So if a man doesn’t want journalists bringing up such stories when it is inconvenient or embarrassing perhaps he might try not behaving like a rutting oaf. Just a thought.
Not really, he thinks its an amusing comment on the NI border, whereas the fact the government needs extraordinary measures to prevent attempts to blow them up is not really a joking matter
The NI border needs extraordinary measures to prevent attempts to blow them up
That's the point. You missed it. Again.
No it doesn't.
Yes it would.
Very funny tweet, spot on. Makes its point extremely well.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
I find brexiteer comedian Jethro very funny, but I wouldn't want him for PM. Actually thinking about it, he'd be better than Boris
David Lammy is a good reason why politicians need to stop using twitter and the BBC need to stop pandering to it. Facebook though far from perfect is a better place for politicians to provide a message for voters.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
Look how badly Ireland, Scotland and northern England do on "irradiation" i.e. sun. Practically unique in the world in their sunlessness, only central south China and the Aleutian Islands are worse.
That is quite impressive in a bad way. Explains the Mancunian character.
+++
Also worth noting that on sun hours, the bleakness of northern Ireland and western Scotland are only matched by the desolations of Iceland, Newfoundland, Antarctica, and central northern Siberia.
OUTER northern Siberia is, in sun hours, nicer than Glasgow.
Visit Scotland should use this in their advertising. "Come to Scotland, about as pleasant as Novaya Zemlya".
It is still the same bollox as last thread. For someone who lives in the sweltering concrete cesspit of London it really is a hoot.
You make a typically elegant and perceptive point, malcolm, nonetheless you are not at liberty to dispute the facts. The chart shows that western Scotland gets the same amount of sun as Yakutia, Siberia. Literally.
I venture this might explain the tendency to mild irritability in your character.
LOL, I am never irritable except when confronted by stupidity ( common on here ). We certainly do not get enough sun, but when we do it is exceedingly pleasant , none of your mugginess and crap and no madding crowds to spoil your happiness. I have lived down south and the little extra sun did not make up for the horrible amount of traffic and people. It made it almost impossible to enjoy holidays except in your own garden. PS: Yakutia must be a green and pleasant place PPS: Sun is shining as I post, trees are turning and a fine autumn beckons
The inner Hebrides, on a fine summer's day, are quite possibly the most beautiful place on God's green earth. Also the food is markedly improved, as it is elsewhere in our fair British islands.
It's just that, for me, there isn't enough of these sunny days; even in relatively sunnier London I get immiserated by the grey.
As ever the ideal would be a mix. A London flat plus a nice little home in the Greek islands would suit me. Plus maybe a botlhole in Thailand. And a ranch in Arizona. I don't ask for much.
Sure you can afford it all
Mrs C and I have discussed this..... being on our own. She'd stay here, here being where we live now. I'd have the cricket season here, the winter in Thailand.
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
o/t (not o/t for you Malc) - v funny from the Graun's rugby coverage of Scots vs Samoa:
The ball, clearly already greasy with sweat or fitted with a jack-in-the-box mechanism, pops out of Sean Maitland’s arms, leading to a Samoa penalty. It’s well inside their own half, but at least allows them to leave it.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
Er... suspect HMQ is checking her options for when BoJo refuses to resign after a VoNC.
Look how badly Ireland, Scotland and northern England do on "irradiation" i.e. sun. Practically unique in the world in their sunlessness, only central south China and the Aleutian Islands are worse.
That is quite impressive in a bad way. Explains the Mancunian character.
+++
Also worth noting that on sun hours, the bleakness of northern Ireland and western Scotland are only matched by the desolations of Iceland, Newfoundland, Antarctica, and central northern Siberia.
OUTER northern Siberia is, in sun hours, nicer than Glasgow.
Visit Scotland should use this in their advertising. "Come to Scotland, about as pleasant as Novaya Zemlya".
It is still the same bollox as last thread. For someone who lives in the sweltering concrete cesspit of London it really is a hoot.
You make a typically elegant and perceptive point, malcolm, nonetheless you are not at liberty to dispute the facts. The chart shows that western Scotland gets the same amount of sun as Yakutia, Siberia. Literally.
I venture this might explain the tendency to mild irritability in your character.
LOL, I am never irritable except when confronted by stupidity ( common on here ). We certainly do not get enough sun, but when we do it is exceedingly pleasant , none of your mugginess and crap and no madding crowds to spoil your happiness. I have lived down south and the little extra sun did not make up for the horrible amount of traffic and people. It made it almost impossible to enjoy holidays except in your own garden. PS: Yakutia must be a green and pleasant place PPS: Sun is shining as I post, trees are turning and a fine autumn beckons
The inner Hebrides, on a fine summer's day, are quite possibly the most beautiful place on God's green earth. Also the food is markedly improved, as it is elsewhere in our fair British islands.
It's just that, for me, there isn't enough of these sunny days; even in relatively sunnier London I get immiserated by the grey.
As ever the ideal would be a mix. A London flat plus a nice little home in the Greek islands would suit me. Plus maybe a botlhole in Thailand. And a ranch in Arizona. I don't ask for much.
Sure you can afford it all
Male modelling is not THAT lucrative, unfortunately
I may be able to scrape to a little cottage in Pelion, Greece, but that's about it. Mind you. Pelion is sublime
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
Er... suspect HMQ is checking her options for when BoJo refuses to resign after a VoNC.
He doesn't need to resign until the commons votes confidence in a successor
If women and girls reported every sexual assault, however minor, to the police, they’d be doing little else from about the age of 12 onwards. And doubtless they’d be criticised for diverting the police from “more important” crimes and/or accused of being hysterical about trivial matters. It is beyond tiresome that women have to - as a matter of routine in pretty much all walks of life - put up with chimpanzee-like behaviour from men of all types. It’d be quite nice if they’d grow up and learn some more civilized mating techniques.
Depressingly, I doubt all these stories will affect peoples’ views of Boris one bit: that he’s a priapic liar is priced in. His opponents are making the same mistake as those thinking that all those IRA stories would harm Corbyn during the last GE. Something more than “Boris is a lech” is needed.
While I agree with that, it is troubling that we have an asymmetric situation
Charlotte Easton (?) could have made these allegations public - or complained to the police - at any point in the last 20 years.
She could have done so during the #metoo campaign a couple of years ago
And yet she chooses to make a word-against-word allegation at a time it will draw the most attention and thereby benefit her career the most while potentially damaging the accused the most
That doesn’t seem equitable to me.
Oh, Charles; in the nicest possible manner, genuinely, do grow up!
Life is not fair. 20 years ago no-one cared about this stuff. No-one really cared 5 years ago. People like Boris got away with such behaviour because no-one cared, because they had power and women didn’t. So women put up with it. And when they are in a position to get their own back, some of them do.
Of course, it’s not fair. But it’s also not fair for women to have to put up with gross behaviour that would shame any decent man. So if a man doesn’t want journalists bringing up such stories when it is inconvenient or embarrassing perhaps he might try not behaving like a rutting oaf. Just a thought.
And if he did behave inappropriately when societal norms were different, and it's brought up now, apologise. Whether it's twenty or thirty years ago.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
Er... suspect HMQ is checking her options for when BoJo refuses to resign after a VoNC.
He doesn't need to resign until the commons votes confidence in a successor
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
This was in this week's NS article about Dom and his vision:
Victory for the Tories lies in winning seats far down the list of Labour targets, to make up for the 30 or so MPs they could lose in Scotland and in Remain constituencies in England. For Johnson to win a majority, you have to go about 60 seats down the list of Labour seats that the Tories could win, which is when you get to Easington in the north-east of England.
Easington? Is Dom serious? This all sounds a bit far fetched to me.
Easington is 197 on the Labour defence list, it's the 60th safest seat they have. NS are reading the list upside down
LOL!!
Don't think anyone's suggested Labour will go down to fewer than 60 seats remaining. What's next, in order to gain any seats the Tories need to be winning places like Liverpool Walton?
Someone should tell the NS that Labour's internal polling (apparently) shows them at risk of losing 100 seats.....
Yes, but someone should tell Labour's internal pollster's that internal Labour polling showed Norwich South going blue in 2017 (Clive Lewis has a 15k majority and Coral have my fiver).
Look how badly Ireland, Scotland and northern England do on "irradiation" i.e. sun. Practically unique in the world in their sunlessness, only central south China and the Aleutian Islands are worse.
That is quite impressive in a bad way. Explains the Mancunian character.
+++
Also worth noting that on sun hours, the bleakness of northern Ireland and western Scotland are only matched by the desolations of Iceland, Newfoundland, Antarctica, and central northern Siberia.
OUTER northern Siberia is, in sun hours, nicer than Glasgow.
Visit Scotland should use this in their advertising. "Come to Scotland, about as pleasant as Novaya Zemlya".
It is still the same bollox as last thread. For someone who lives in the sweltering concrete cesspit of London it really is a hoot.
LOL, I am never irritable except when confronted by stupidity ( common on here ). We certainly do not get enough sun, but when we do it is exceedingly pleasant , none of your mugginess and crap and no madding crowds to spoil your happiness. I have lived down south and the little extra sun did not make up for the horrible amount of traffic and people. It made it almost impossible to enjoy holidays except in your own garden. PS: Yakutia must be a green and pleasant place PPS: Sun is shining as I post, trees are turning and a fine autumn beckons
The inner Hebrides, on a fine summer's day, are quite possibly the most beautiful place on God's green earth. Also the food is markedly improved, as it is elsewhere in our fair British islands.
It's just that, for me, there isn't enough of these sunny days; even in relatively sunnier London I get immiserated by the grey.
As ever the ideal would be a mix. A London flat plus a nice little home in the Greek islands would suit me. Plus maybe a botlhole in Thailand. And a ranch in Arizona. I don't ask for much.
Sure you can afford it all
Mrs C and I have discussed this..... being on our own. She'd stay here, here being where we live now. I'd have the cricket season here, the winter in Thailand.
I can see having a few months in the sun during winter being pleasant.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
Er... suspect HMQ is checking her options for when BoJo refuses to resign after a VoNC.
He will have (up to) 14 days to resecure the confidence of the House or for someone else to get confidence if they can.
Very unlikely the Queen would get involved while this process is going on.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
I'm also minded of the "wardrobe with the key left in the lock" comment.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Many people are attracted to power.
Yes I know that. Still doesn’t make up for smelly blubber all over you.
Look how badly Ireland, Scotland and northern England do on "irradiation" i.e. sun. Practically unique in the world in their sunlessness, only central south China and the Aleutian Islands are worse.
That is quite impressive in a bad way. Explains the Mancunian character.
+++
Also worth noting that on sun hours, the bleakness of northern Ireland and western Scotland are only matched by the desolations of Iceland, Newfoundland, Antarctica, and central northern Siberia.
OUTER northern Siberia is, in sun hours, nicer than Glasgow.
Visit Scotland should use this in their advertising. "Come to Scotland, about as pleasant as Novaya Zemlya".
It is still the same bollox as last thread. For someone who lives in the sweltering concrete cesspit of London it really is a hoot.
You make a typically elegant and perceptive point, malcolm, nonetheless you are not at liberty to dispute the facts. The chart shows that western Scotland gets the same amount of sun as Yakutia, Siberia. Literally.
I venture this might explain the tendency to mild irritability in your character.
LOL, I am never irritable except when confronted by stupidity ( common on here ). We certainly do not get enough sun, but when we do it is exceedingly pleasant , none of your mugginess and crap and no madding crowds to spoil your happiness. I have lived down south and the little extra sun did not make up for the horrible amount of traffic and people. It made it almost impossible to enjoy holidays except in your own garden. PS: Yakutia must be a green and pleasant place PPS: Sun is shining as I post, trees are turning and a fine autumn beckons
The inner Hebrides, on a fine summer's day, are quite possibly the most beautiful place on God's green earth. Also the food is markedly improved, as it is elsewhere in our fair British islands.
It's just that, for me, there isn't enough of these sunny days; even in relatively sunnier London I get immiserated by the grey.
Sure you can afford it all
Male modelling is not THAT lucrative, unfortunately
I may be able to scrape to a little cottage in Pelion, Greece, but that's about it. Mind you. Pelion is sublime
This was in this week's NS article about Dom and his vision:
Victory for the Tories lies in winning seats far down the list of Labour targets, to make up for the 30 or so MPs they could lose in Scotland and in Remain constituencies in England. For Johnson to win a majority, you have to go about 60 seats down the list of Labour seats that the Tories could win, which is when you get to Easington in the north-east of England.
Easington? Is Dom serious? This all sounds a bit far fetched to me.
Easington is 197 on the Labour defence list, it's the 60th safest seat they have. NS are reading the list upside down
LOL!!
Don't think anyone's suggested Labour will go down to fewer than 60 seats remaining. What's next, in order to gain any seats the Tories need to be winning places like Liverpool Walton?
Someone should tell the NS that Labour's internal polling (apparently) shows them at risk of losing 100 seats.....
Yes, but someone should tell Labour's internal pollster's that internal Labour polling showed Norwich South going blue in 2017 (Clive Lewis has a 15k majority and Coral have my fiver).
I remember the 'anyone with a majority under 10,000 is very nervous' comments from 'sources'
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
Er... suspect HMQ is checking her options for when BoJo refuses to resign after a VoNC.
He will have (up to) 14 days to resecure the confidence of the House or for someone else to get confidence if they can.
Very unlikely the Queen would get involved while this process is going on.
No, but there have been suggestions, not necessarily denied by No. 10, the Boris would still refuse to go. Will of (*) the people and all that.
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
I suppose for one central and fundamental reason :
The Queen might reasonably expect her Prime Minister to set an outstanding example of probity and not to so flagrantly and dismissively break the law in whose name the law stands.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Not to mention a proclivity for frequenting blind barbers.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
Er... suspect HMQ is checking her options for when BoJo refuses to resign after a VoNC.
He doesn't need to resign until the commons votes confidence in a successor
One of the favourite get-out plans for Boris for the past few days was Boris resigns and insists someone else becomes PM.
As we always have a PM I'm at a loss as to how that works if no one else takes the poison chalice that is being PM as an extension is asked for.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
I'm also minded of the "wardrobe with the key left in the lock" comment.
Wasn’t that said of Sir Nicholas Soames?
Anyway give me a scented rose over a smelly man any day of the week. Boris is the bindweed of politics. No matter what you he keeps coming back.
David Lammy is a good reason why politicians need to stop using twitter and the BBC need to stop pandering to it. Facebook though far from perfect is a better place for politicians to provide a message for voters.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
It is why he can shag his way across London and then be forgiven for it. The Conservative Party hopes it is why he will win a snap election.
"So what first attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?"
Each to their own, but I guess the sex appeal comes from proximity to power and influence.
He may be a ruthless sh1t, but Bors is also genuinely funny. You can charm a girl into bed with laughter. Add that to the power, money and influence, and there you go.
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
Er... suspect HMQ is checking her options for when BoJo refuses to resign after a VoNC.
He doesn't need to resign until the commons votes confidence in a successor
One of the favourite get-out plans for Boris for the past few days was Boris resigns and insists someone else becomes PM.
As we always have a PM I'm at a loss as to how that works if no one else takes the poison chalice that is being PM as an extension is asked for.
If he resigns he resigns. In the absence of a successor the reserved powers revert to HMQ, liz would have to send it. Hence she will 'insist' the LOTO attempt to form a government and if it's no confidenced, elections
May I just point out to some frothers down thread the context of Dominic Grieve indicating that the Queen would dismiss Boris.
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
Why on Earth should the Queen "sack" Boris Johnson when Parliament could VONC him at any time?
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
I suppose for one central and fundamental reason :
The Queen might reasonably expect her Prime Minister to set an outstanding example of probity and not to so flagrantly and dismissively break the law in whose name the law stands.
I think there's a lot of wishful thinking going on here Lord W.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Many people are attracted to power.
Yes I know that. Still doesn’t make up for smelly blubber all over you.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Not to mention a proclivity for frequenting blind barbers.
And looking as if he gets dressed by walking into a wardrobe with glue on his body.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
It is why he can shag his way across London and then be forgiven for it. The Conservative Party hopes it is why he will win a snap election.
"So what first attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?"
Each to their own, but I guess the sex appeal comes from proximity to power and influence.
Boris was at it at Oxford. Power might help but in his case it is not needed.
At Oxford he was an "it" boy - posh*, well connected and seeking the Oxford version of power (President of the Union Society). I saw it's reflection at Cambridge.
It maybe just the photos we see from the time, but he also appeared more svelte and better-dressed and coiffed than currently. Which is not unusual in a male between the ages of 20 and 55.
I'm nor sure the comments on Boris physical appearance would be quite so acceptable if they were about Jo Swinson or another frontline female politician
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Many people are attracted to power.
Yes I know that. Still doesn’t make up for smelly blubber all over you.
Male modelling is not THAT lucrative, unfortunately. I may be able to scrape to a little cottage in Pelion, Greece, but that's about it. Mind you. Pelion is sublime
I'll take your word for it. It's just that my freedom to live and work in other countries will soon be somewhat constrained...
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
It is why he can shag his way across London and then be forgiven for it. The Conservative Party hopes it is why he will win a snap election.
"So what first attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?"
Each to their own, but I guess the sex appeal comes from proximity to power and influence.
He may be a ruthless sh1t, but Bors is also genuinely funny. You can charm a girl into bed with laughter. Add that to the power, money and influence, and there you go.
Ah. That'll explain my Millions of Women Weren't Waiting To Meet Me.
That is a nonsensical list. London obviously gets more sun than Manchester or Dublin!
EDIT: after some Googling, it looks like these stats are unreliable (perhaps old). There is no hard and fast answer, but it looks like London gets 1500-1600 hours of sun a year with Manchester and Dublin about 1300-1400.
I'm nor sure the comments on Boris physical appearance would be quite so acceptable if they were about Jo Swinson or another frontline female politician
Do keep up.
Women are by definition not sexist, and men are by definition not allowed to be victims ;-) .
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
I'm also minded of the "wardrobe with the key left in the lock" comment.
Wasn’t that said of Sir Nicholas Soames?
Anyway give me a scented rose over a smelly man any day of the week. Boris is the bindweed of politics. No matter what you he keeps coming back.
It was indeed, but I think may also be applicable more widely (if you'll pardon the pun). I'm sure there's a joke there about roses, men and small pricks, but I can't think of one. Perhaps @Byronic will oblige.
I'm nor sure the comments on Boris physical appearance would be quite so acceptable if they were about Jo Swinson or another frontline female politician
Do keep up.
Women are by definition not sexist, and men are by definition not allowed to be victims ;-) .
I'm nor sure the comments on Boris physical appearance would be quite so acceptable if they were about Jo Swinson or another frontline female politician
Oh I am quite prepared to criticise a woman’s looks as well.
Jo’s earrings are a little distracting. And her teeth are a bit gummy. She should do something about her hair. But generally she looks fine.
Nicola Sturgeon always looks very well-groomed.
Most people in public life are appallingly dressed and groomed. Why? It doesn’t take much effort and mirrors are not that expensive. It's not as if many of them are obviously spending the time saved on improving their intellects.
And now, having been rude about everyone on an equal opportunities basis, I must be off.
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Would not appear to me to be the most obvious sex symbol, which makes me think he must be a fantastic salesman/negotiator. How else does he manage to attract so many women?
Traditional LAB/CON switchers won't be the primary Tory targets in the next election. Firstly, because the Labour vote is close to its extremely sticky floor of around 20%, and most of those voters are never going to switch to the Conservatives. Secondly, because the bulk of voters who have left the Conservatives since 2017 have gone to the Lib Dems or Brexit Party, it makes far more sense to target those voters who have at least demonstrated that they're willing to vote Conservative in a pinch.
My expectation is that the Tories will continue to squeeze the Brexit Party vote by arguing that only Boris Johnson can deliver Brexit, and squeeze Tory-LD switchers by arguing that Johnson is better than Corbyn. And, of course, coming up with some generous post-Brexit spending pledges to squeeze both.
Furthermore, you might almost think that having Parliament force an extension which Johnson can credibly argue to Leave voters he didn't want and did everything he could to prevent, giving him an extra couple months to hold an election without worrying about a no deal Brexit in the middle of the campaign while reinforcing the People VS Parliament narrative he needs to win back Conservatives who have gone over to the Brexit Party, plays right into his hands.
I think the path for Johnson is very narrow, but I wouldn't write his chances off.
Good post. I am in the latter group of disaffected Cons supporters you describe. Plus it has been my contention that post-October 31 would be fatal for Boris. Perhaps I am overestimating the resolution of some Brexiters while underestimating Nigel's efficacy. The latter though a dangerous path.
Doesn't it make you pause and think that everyone here saying that post-October 31 would be fatal is a remainer who wishes it to be fatal?
I don't see anyone who supports Boris suggesting that an extension forced by his opponents would hurt him rather than play into his hands.
When Theresa May was forced by her opponents to delay Brexit she was doomed. Hard to see how Boris escapes the same fate.
Theresa May wasn't forced. She voluntarily suggested, called a vote for, and then voted for an extension.
Her attorney general advised it would have been unlawful for her not to extend against the expressed wishes of parliament. Not all PMs are as willing to break the law as our current charlatan, in her mind she was forced.
Not really, he thinks its an amusing comment on the NI border, whereas the fact the government needs extraordinary measures to prevent attempts to blow them up is not really a joking matter
The NI border needs extraordinary measures to prevent attempts to blow them up
That's the point. You missed it. Again.
No it doesn't.
Yes it would.
Very funny tweet, spot on. Makes its point extremely well.
No it doesn't, since there's no plans to put infrastructure on the border, there's nothing to blow up! What are they going to blow up if there's no infrastructure to attack?
Earlier this year I was sat next to a consultant radiologist at a dinner. We had an erudite and far-reaching conversation on cancer treatment.
Then, all of a sudden, she announced she had joined the Conservative Party "in order to vote for Boris". Her enthusiasm for him was positively gushing and almost adolescent. "Giggling" was the nearest adjective I could come up with. A complete transformation from sober professional to star-struck groupie.
This is why the opposition parties have a Johnson problem. "Excitement" is priced in. Sadly. His support is based on him being interesting/funny and delivering Brexit.
The fact of the matter is that Boris oozes sex, and certain men and women can become highly energized by someone with this trait. I suspect Boris's thigh-fondling antics actually work for him more times than not. It's only when he misreads his target that he falls flat on his face, but he'll probably regard that as a mere occupational hazard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Would not appear to me to be the most obvious sex symbol, which makes me think he must be a fantastic salesman/negotiator. How else does he manage to attract so many women?
I'm nor sure the comments on Boris physical appearance would be quite so acceptable if they were about Jo Swinson or another frontline female politician
Oh I am quite prepared to criticise a woman’s looks as well.
Jo’s earrings are a little distracting. And her teeth are a bit gummy. She should do something about her hair. But generally she looks fine.
Nicola Sturgeon always looks very well-groomed.
Most people in public life are appallingly dressed and groomed. Why? It doesn’t take much effort and mirrors are not that expensive. It's not as if many of them are obviously spending the time saved on improving their intellects.
And now, having been rude about everyone on an equal opportunities basis, I must be off.
Clearly you're not prepared to criticise women as well, because you've only been mildly nasty to Jo and positively pleasant to Sturgeon, while describing Boris as being "smelly blubber", which is pretty fucking offensive, by any double standard.
“Oozes sex” - I realise I am not his target audience but he seems to me to have all the sex appeal of a boiled potato in a suit. He also looks as if he doesn’t wash often enough.
Oozes sex was the comment not sex APPEAL.
Which he probably does. After all, as you point out, he does not appear to wash.
Yes, that's much more sensible. There's a little pocket around Eastbourne which gets 1900 hours of sun a year - almost Mediterranean. Meanwhile, parts of western Scotland get under 900 hours a year, which is on a par, for bleakness, with southwestern Alaska.
Whilst Mike makes a good point, the converse is that the Conservative support is (for now at least) more solid and less divided than that of the opposition parties, simply because of the concentration and enthusiasm of the pro-Brexit vote.
Whether this will persist beyond the 31st October depends a lot on what happens in the next few weeks. If we crash out with No Deal, support for the Tories will dissipate rapidly as the naive optimism about crash-out bumps into reality. If there is an extension, then everything will depend on how well Boris manages to finesse away his breaking of the 'do-or-die' pledge and blame it on the big boys being nasty to him, but I am sure there will be some hit to his support.
Of course, if he somehow manages to make Houdini look like a bumbling amateur at escapology by leaving with a deal on October 31st, then he will win a massive majority and deservedly so. The main problem with pinning your hopes on this is that the opposition parties aren't completely stupid. The second problem is that there isn't enough time.
And having secured a large majority - backing will dissipate quickly once the public realises the WA was just the appetiser and more hard choices will be needed as future relationship is sorted (YOU SAID BREXIT WOULD BE DONE! WTF?) . But Boris won't care. He will have his majority.
I'm nor sure the comments on Boris physical appearance would be quite so acceptable if they were about Jo Swinson or another frontline female politician
Oh I am quite prepared to criticise a woman’s looks as well.
Jo’s earrings are a little distracting. And her teeth are a bit gummy. She should do something about her hair. But generally she looks fine.
Nicola Sturgeon always looks very well-groomed.
Most people in public life are appallingly dressed and groomed. Why? It doesn’t take much effort and mirrors are not that expensive. It's not as if many of them are obviously spending the time saved on improving their intellects.
And now, having been rude about everyone on an equal opportunities basis, I must be off.
Clearly you're not prepared to criticise women as well, because you've only been mildly nasty to Jo and positively pleasant to Sturgeon, while describing Boris as being "smelly blubber", which is pretty fucking offensive, by any double standard.
Comments
I don't see anyone who supports Boris suggesting that an extension forced by his opponents would hurt him rather than play into his hands.
"William IV's dismissal of Lord Melbourne's Whig government in November 1834 was the last time a British monarch tried to assert political authority by bringing down a government that had majority support in the House of Commons."
You need to keep exceptions for AONB and listed buildings, and ensure that appropriate permission is still required for adding extra dwellings rather than extending existing units.
Planning reform is one of the most urgent issues facing the U.K., but as you say it has the potential to be hugely unpopular. (As with most of the “too-difficult” pile, see social care, welfare reform, tertiary education funding and many more).
The Dismissal! The Dismissal! When the Australian PM was dismissed in the 1970's by the Governor-General! It's the same principle and it happened in the 1970s!
Many exclamation marks!!!!
The Prime Minister had refused to observe the Benn Act, had been taken to the Supreme Court and lost and then refused to accept the judgment, defied the law and refused to resign as Prime Minister.
I think with Nigel against you you are in a corner if you want similar things but Nigel's vision is the purer because the purer the vision the easier the sell. No matter the reality of what's being sold.
Life is not fair. 20 years ago no-one cared about this stuff. No-one really cared 5 years ago. People like Boris got away with such behaviour because no-one cared, because they had power and women didn’t. So women put up with it. And when they are in a position to get their own back, some of them do.
Of course, it’s not fair. But it’s also not fair for women to have to put up with gross behaviour that would shame any decent man. So if a man doesn’t want journalists bringing up such stories when it is inconvenient or embarrassing perhaps he might try not behaving like a rutting oaf. Just a thought.
Very funny tweet, spot on. Makes its point extremely well.
If Parliament refuses to VONC Boris then I don't see any reason why the Queen should "remove" him.
Sounds like like the Rabble Alliance are just hoping HMQ will do their job for them...
The ball, clearly already greasy with sweat or fitted with a jack-in-the-box mechanism, pops out of Sean Maitland’s arms, leading to a Samoa penalty. It’s well inside their own half, but at least allows them to leave it.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/190916/johnson_boris.htm
It is why he can shag his way across London and then be forgiven for it. The Conservative Party hopes it is why he will win a snap election.
I may be able to scrape to a little cottage in Pelion, Greece, but that's about it. Mind you. Pelion is sublime
Quick to wound. But afraid to strike.
Each to their own, but I guess the sex appeal comes from proximity to power and influence.
Very unlikely the Queen would get involved while this process is going on.
But maybe I’m just being too fussy.
(* Well, the 37% that actually voted to leave.)
The Queen might reasonably expect her Prime Minister to set an outstanding example of probity and not to so flagrantly and dismissively break the law in whose name the law stands.
As we always have a PM I'm at a loss as to how that works if no one else takes the poison chalice that is being PM as an extension is asked for.
The 10 dullest cities in Europe (Sunlight hours)
4 London, England - 1,410
5 Manchester, England - 1,416
6 Dublin, Ireland - 1,424
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-sunniest-and-dullest-cities-in-europe/
Anyway give me a scented rose over a smelly man any day of the week. Boris is the bindweed of politics. No matter what you he keeps coming back.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/president-hollandes-relationship-with-julie-gayet-goes-back-more-than-two-years-9066489.html
It maybe just the photos we see from the time, but he also appeared more svelte and better-dressed and coiffed than currently. Which is not unusual in a male between the ages of 20 and 55.
*-in simulacrum form
EDIT: after some Googling, it looks like these stats are unreliable (perhaps old). There is no hard and fast answer, but it looks like London gets 1500-1600 hours of sun a year with Manchester and Dublin about 1300-1400.
Not as a big a difference as I expected, TBH
Women are by definition not sexist, and men are by definition not allowed to be victims ;-) .
Jo’s earrings are a little distracting. And her teeth are a bit gummy. She should do something about her hair. But generally she looks fine.
Nicola Sturgeon always looks very well-groomed.
Most people in public life are appallingly dressed and groomed. Why? It doesn’t take much effort and mirrors are not that expensive. It's not as if many of them are obviously spending the time saved on improving their intellects.
And now, having been rude about everyone on an equal opportunities basis, I must be off.
Which he probably does. After all, as you point out, he does not appear to wash.
https://twitter.com/vaisfourlovers/status/1178390921416601600