How did it become the world's maddest left wing echo chamber ?
Oh dear, she has made the mistake of stepping in on a trans-gender argument.
Which means she's be harried for the rest of her life by lunatics.
There's an unusual level of aggression around transgender matters. It iis only a matter of time until there is a full on move to remove the T from LGBT.
Clearly different isn't it ?
LGB refer to preference whereas T is about gender.
All this just to claim that they changed Donald Trump's name to Donald Trump Asterisk is the worst strategy since calling him Drumpf.
It serves no practical purpose, even sitting on the charges and refuse a trial is something Grieve-Letwin would do.
At what stage are the Democrats going to realise that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate are going to take great delight in stretching out their trial of Joe Biden’s Ukrainian business interests, for months on end, in the middle of their primary process?
The problem for the Democrats is their strategy on the Impeachment process is something that the Grieve-Letwin team did in Britain in 2019, given the electoral results in the General Election it's not a good strategy.
How did it become the world's maddest left wing echo chamber ?
Oh dear, she has made the mistake of stepping in on a trans-gender argument.
Which means she's be harried for the rest of her life by lunatics.
There's an unusual level of aggression around transgender matters. It iis only a matter of time until there is a full on move to remove the T from LGBT.
I think so. Either that or the 'L' just get up and leave.
Corbyn's speech: "Tory rule has trashed the country so that it is full of poor people living on gruel in cardboard boxes......and we have been so trashed and impoverished that we are the 5th richest country on earth (repeated twice so far)".
Bloody hell. Unite were funding Skwarkbox's legal fees.
That fact isn't going to go away. Len might be in a bit of bother.
Do we know how much the legal fees are?
I don't think its cheep, but would struggle to estimate even an order of magnitude,
£10,000, £100,000, £1,000,000?
It's dragged on for over two years, so I'd have thought 100k-250k. IANAL!
If they’re on the hook for north of 300k fighting a case their own lawyer clearly had no faith in on behalf of somebody who is not a member, the Certification Officer is going to go ballistic.
I think, but haven't double checked, that Unite, give funding to Skwarkbox, probably form their political fund. To maximiser the effect of the union on the overall political discution in the UK. So presumably the Union felt it needed to stand behind its sock-puppet when it got in trouble for doing want the union asked for.
Bloody hell. Unite were funding Skwarkbox's legal fees.
That fact isn't going to go away. Len might be in a bit of bother.
Do we know how much the legal fees are?
I don't think its cheep, but would struggle to estimate even an order of magnitude,
£10,000, £100,000, £1,000,000?
It's dragged on for over two years, so I'd have thought 100k-250k. IANAL!
If they’re on the hook for north of 300k fighting a case their own lawyer clearly had no faith in on behalf of somebody who is not a member, the Certification Officer is going to go ballistic.
I think, but haven't double checked, that Unite, give funding to Skwarkbox, probably form their political fund. To maximiser the effect of the union on the overall political discution in the UK. So presumably the Union felt it needed to stand behind its sock-puppet when it got in trouble for doing want the union asked for.
If you replace "the Union" with "Len", then I think you're spot on.
Outrageous....do the nutters on twitter not realize that to the majority of the public JK Rowling tweet sounds perfectly reasonable. But no, apparently she is now a massive transphobe.
Slight problem is that a less superficial look at this case shows the important nub of the matter. The woman was not sacked for holding the view, or her twitter pronouncements, but it would appear she made it clear that she vociferously held that view. I think the inference was that, if she came across a transgender person she would insist on using the masculine pronoun rather than the feminine. The Daily Mail would rather spin it as another angry "political correctness gawn mad" story to get their swivel eyed readership all in a lather.
Strange: I’m not sure I ever use a gendered pronoun when talking to someone, only when talking about them.
There is that, but it wasn’t quite what the judge said: I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment...
Bloody hell. Unite were funding Skwarkbox's legal fees.
That fact isn't going to go away. Len might be in a bit of bother.
Do we know how much the legal fees are?
I don't think its cheep, but would struggle to estimate even an order of magnitude,
£10,000, £100,000, £1,000,000?
It's dragged on for over two years, so I'd have thought 100k-250k. IANAL!
If they’re on the hook for north of 300k fighting a case their own lawyer clearly had no faith in on behalf of somebody who is not a member, the Certification Officer is going to go ballistic.
I think, but haven't double checked, that Unite, give funding to Skwarkbox, probably form their political fund. To maximiser the effect of the union on the overall political discution in the UK. So presumably the Union felt it needed to stand behind its sock-puppet when it got in trouble for doing want the union asked for.
Some sources describe Walker as a ‘Unite Activist.’
So it’s just possible he’s a member or employee, in which case it would be legal.
But given his private resources, the optics are still awful.
Outrageous....do the nutters on twitter not realize that to the majority of the public JK Rowling tweet sounds perfectly reasonable. But no, apparently she is now a massive transphobe.
Slight problem is that a less superficial look at this case shows the important nub of the matter. The woman was not sacked for holding the view, or her twitter pronouncements, but it would appear she made it clear that she vociferously held that view. I think the inference was that, if she came across a transgender person she would insist on using the masculine pronoun rather than the feminine. The Daily Mail would rather spin it as another angry "political correctness gawn mad" story to get their swivel eyed readership all in a lather.
Strange: I’m not sure I ever use a gendered pronoun when talking to someone, only when talking about them.
There is that, but it wasn’t quite what the judge said: I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment...
Unbelievably there is no mention today at all of implementing Boundary changes or introducing a Bill such that the Boundary Commission does its next review with 650 MPs and speed up next review so it definitely gets done in time for next GE.
See link - pages 126 and 127 - for full details of plans re "Constitution and democracy"
Both Cameron and May failed to get this through. It is simply breathtaking that Boris should take any risk with this. A Bill should be passed immediately returning to 650 MPs and for Boundary Commission to then start review (which takes over 2 years to complete) immediately such that Boundary Commission then reports in 2022 - not September 2023 as currently scheduled which is cutting it far too fine.
Why on Earth would Boris risk angering his own MPs by cutting their seats?
From a tactical perspective, it's not quite so clear-cut that a boundary review would worj to the Conservatives' advantage than it used to be. It used to be that the Tory shires and suburbs grew, the Labour cities and industrial towns shrank. Now it is the Labour cities which are growing - Manchester and Liverpool will probably both merit an extra seat by the next election; London, in particular inner London, continues to grow and grow; and Labour's small industrial towns are increasingly favouring the Conservatives. There are probably advantages to yhe Tories in doing it - the Welsh valleys, for example, are over represented - but it's nothing like the advantage it once was.
It's a very narrow idea, in any case, regardless of the political/gerrymandering motives behind it. I have never grasped why having 600 MPs selected by FPP is any more democratic than having 650 MPs selected by FPP. I suspect Boris thinks it's too much trouble – bound to be controversial and cause unnecessary aggravation for no clear dividend.
Unbelievably there is no mention today at all of implementing Boundary changes or introducing a Bill such that the Boundary Commission does its next review with 650 MPs and speed up next review so it definitely gets done in time for next GE.
See link - pages 126 and 127 - for full details of plans re "Constitution and democracy"
Both Cameron and May failed to get this through. It is simply breathtaking that Boris should take any risk with this. A Bill should be passed immediately returning to 650 MPs and for Boundary Commission to then start review (which takes over 2 years to complete) immediately such that Boundary Commission then reports in 2022 - not September 2023 as currently scheduled which is cutting it far too fine.
Why on Earth would Boris risk angering his own MPs by cutting their seats?
From a tactical perspective, it's not quite so clear-cut that a boundary review would worj to the Conservatives' advantage than it used to be. It used to be that the Tory shires and suburbs grew, the Labour cities and industrial towns shrank. Now it is the Labour cities which are growing - Manchester and Liverpool will probably both merit an extra seat by the next election; London, in particular inner London, continues to grow and grow; and Labour's small industrial towns are increasingly favouring the Conservatives. There are probably advantages to yhe Tories in doing it - the Welsh valleys, for example, are over represented - but it's nothing like the advantage it once was.
It's a very narrow idea, in any case, regardless of the political/gerrymandering motives behind it. I have never grasped why having 600 MPs selected by FPP is any more democratic than having 650 MPs selected by FPP. I suspect Boris thinks it's too much trouble – bound to be controversial and cause unnecessary aggravation for no clear dividend.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Unbelievably there is no mention today at all of implementing Boundary changes or introducing a Bill such that the Boundary Commission does its next review with 650 MPs and speed up next review so it definitely gets done in time for next GE.
See link - pages 126 and 127 - for full details of plans re "Constitution and democracy"
Both Cameron and May failed to get this through. It is simply breathtaking that Boris should take any risk with this. A Bill should be passed immediately returning to 650 MPs and for Boundary Commission to then start review (which takes over 2 years to complete) immediately such that Boundary Commission then reports in 2022 - not September 2023 as currently scheduled which is cutting it far too fine.
Why on Earth would Boris risk angering his own MPs by cutting their seats?
From a tactical perspective, it's not quite so clear-cut that a boundary review would worj to the Conservatives' advantage than it used to be. It used to be that the Tory shires and suburbs grew, the Labour cities and industrial towns shrank. Now it is the Labour cities which are growing - Manchester and Liverpool will probably both merit an extra seat by the next election; London, in particular inner London, continues to grow and grow; and Labour's small industrial towns are increasingly favouring the Conservatives. There are probably advantages to yhe Tories in doing it - the Welsh valleys, for example, are over represented - but it's nothing like the advantage it once was.
It's a very narrow idea, in any case, regardless of the political/gerrymandering motives behind it. I have never grasped why having 600 MPs selected by FPP is any more democratic than having 650 MPs selected by FPP. I suspect Boris thinks it's too much trouble – bound to be controversial and cause unnecessary aggravation for no clear dividend.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
It makes less sense with the additional responsibilities MPs will have after Brexit.
Outrageous....do the nutters on twitter not realize that to the majority of the public JK Rowling tweet sounds perfectly reasonable. But no, apparently she is now a massive transphobe.
Unbelievably there is no mention today at all of implementing Boundary changes or introducing a Bill such that the Boundary Commission does its next review with 650 MPs and speed up next review so it definitely gets done in time for next GE.
See link - pages 126 and 127 - for full details of plans re "Constitution and democracy"
Both Cameron and May failed to get this through. It is simply breathtaking that Boris should take any risk with this. A Bill should be passed immediately returning to 650 MPs and for Boundary Commission to then start review (which takes over 2 years to complete) immediately such that Boundary Commission then reports in 2022 - not September 2023 as currently scheduled which is cutting it far too fine.
Why on Earth would Boris risk angering his own MPs by cutting their seats?
From a tactical perspective, it's not quite so clear-cut that a boundary review would worj to the Conservatives' advantage than it used to be. It used to be that the Tory shires and suburbs grew, the Labour cities and industrial towns shrank. Now it is the Labour cities which are growing - Manchester and Liverpool will probably both merit an extra seat by the next election; London, in particular inner London, continues to grow and grow; and Labour's small industrial towns are increasingly favouring the Conservatives. There are probably advantages to yhe Tories in doing it - the Welsh valleys, for example, are over represented - but it's nothing like the advantage it once was.
It's a very narrow idea, in any case, regardless of the political/gerrymandering motives behind it. I have never grasped why having 600 MPs selected by FPP is any more democratic than having 650 MPs selected by FPP. I suspect Boris thinks it's too much trouble – bound to be controversial and cause unnecessary aggravation for no clear dividend.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
It makes less sense with the additional responsibilities MPs will have after Brexit.
If the MPs are too busy to come up with new laws that interfere with my life freedom. that's a good added bonus form my perspective.
Corbyn's speech: "Tory rule has trashed the country so that it is full of poor people living on gruel in cardboard boxes......and we have been so trashed and impoverished that we are the 5th richest country on earth (repeated twice so far)".
The Tories have checked the maths, the majority would have been larger on the new boundaries. For instance the quad of Coventry South, Cov NW, Kenilworth and Southam and Warwick and leamington which was 1 out of 4 Tory goes to
Cov South & Kenilworth, Con Cov Northwest, Labour Warwick And Leamington, Con And Southam moves into Rugby which is also a very easy Con Hold
Unbelievably there is no mention today at all of implementing Boundary changes or introducing a Bill such that the Boundary Commission does its next review with 650 MPs and speed up next review so it definitely gets done in time for next GE.
See link - pages 126 and 127 - for full details of plans re "Constitution and democracy"
Both Cameron and May failed to get this through. It is simply breathtaking that Boris should take any risk with this. A Bill should be passed immediately returning to 650 MPs and for Boundary Commission to then start review (which takes over 2 years to complete) immediately such that Boundary Commission then reports in 2022 - not September 2023 as currently scheduled which is cutting it far too fine.
Why on Earth would Boris risk angering his own MPs by cutting their seats?
From a tactical perspective, it's not quite so clear-cut that a boundary review would worj to the Conservatives' advantage than it used to be. It used to be that the Tory shires and suburbs grew, the Labour cities and industrial towns shrank. Now it is the Labour cities which are growing - Manchester and Liverpool will probably both merit an extra seat by the next election; London, in particular inner London, continues to grow and grow; and Labour's small industrial towns are increasingly favouring the Conservatives. There are probably advantages to yhe Tories in doing it - the Welsh valleys, for example, are over represented - but it's nothing like the advantage it once was.
It's a very narrow idea, in any case, regardless of the political/gerrymandering motives behind it. I have never grasped why having 600 MPs selected by FPP is any more democratic than having 650 MPs selected by FPP. I suspect Boris thinks it's too much trouble – bound to be controversial and cause unnecessary aggravation for no clear dividend.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
So 800 MPs should be preferred? More jobs; more representation.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
So 800 MPs should be preferred?More jobs; more representation.
Matching the number of MPs to the number of seats in the Commons would be sensible.
I have some sympathy with the SNP cause. I really don't like their MPs though. Scotland is such a great nation and has great people. I find it a little baffling that they don't get better representatives amongst the nationalist cause.
Salmond is the only SNP politician who I'd say I quite like. Hamza is ok too. Nothing against Sturgeon, but at Westminster they seem an unattractive bunch.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
So 800 MPs should be preferred?More jobs; more representation.
Matching the number of MPs to the number of seats in the Commons would be sensible.
Unbelievably there is no mention today at all of implementing Boundary changes or introducing a Bill such that the Boundary Commission does its next review with 650 MPs and speed up next review so it definitely gets done in time for next GE.
See link - pages 126 and 127 - for full details of plans re "Constitution and democracy"
Both Cameron and May failed to get this through. It is simply breathtaking that Boris should take any risk with this. A Bill should be passed immediately returning to 650 MPs and for Boundary Commission to then start review (which takes over 2 years to complete) immediately such that Boundary Commission then reports in 2022 - not September 2023 as currently scheduled which is cutting it far too fine.
Why on Earth would Boris risk angering his own MPs by cutting their seats?
- the Welsh valleys, for example, are over represented - but it's nothing like the advantage it once was.
It's a very narrow idea, in any case, regardless of the political/gerrymandering motives behind it. I have never grasped why having 600 MPs selected by FPP is any more democratic than having 650 MPs selected by FPP. I suspect Boris thinks it's too much trouble – bound to be controversial and cause unnecessary aggravation for no clear dividend.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
You will not here me arguing against a bigger cut, 300 sounds good. but I know not everybody agrees and I do understand the idea of compromise.
I know this is going over an argument that been on this site many times before, but, at the moment the UK is an out-lyer in terms of its parliament size, both HoC and HoL and I would like to reduse both of them.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
How did it become the world's maddest left wing echo chamber ?
Oh dear, she has made the mistake of stepping in on a trans-gender argument.
Which means she's be harried for the rest of her life by lunatics.
There's an unusual level of aggression around transgender matters. It iis only a matter of time until there is a full on move to remove the T from LGBT.
So long as we return to 'every five years max' instead of just at the Sovereigns pleasure (or when one dies) which was the situation before, IIRC, the Great Reform Act.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
So 800 MPs should be preferred?More jobs; more representation.
Matching the number of MPs to the number of seats in the Commons would be sensible.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
So 800 MPs should be preferred?More jobs; more representation.
Matching the number of MPs to the number of seats in the Commons would be sensible.
At present it is like a rush hour train.
Best reason I have heard yet!!
That then seems to be a mummified collection of koala bears, like too many other countries legislatures.
Personally I think that quite a full chamber, and the oppositon facing the government, has much to do with our lower levels of corruption than elsewhere.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
Unbelievably there is no mention today at all of implementing Boundary changes or introducing a Bill such that the Boundary Commission does its next review with 650 MPs and speed up next review so it definitely gets done in time for next GE.
See link - pages 126 and 127 - for full details of plans re "Constitution and democracy"
Both Cameron and May failed to get this through. It is simply breathtaking that Boris should take any risk with this. A Bill should be passed immediately returning to 650 MPs and for Boundary Commission to then start review (which takes over 2 years to complete) immediately such that Boundary Commission then reports in 2022 - not September 2023 as currently scheduled which is cutting it far too fine.
Why on Earth would Boris risk angering his own MPs by cutting their seats?
From a tactical perspective, it's not quite so clear-cut that a boundary review would worj to the Conservatives' advantage than it used to be. It used to be that the Tory shires and suburbs grew, the Labour cities and industrial towns shrank. Now it is the Labour cities which are growing - Manchester and Liverpool will probably both merit an extra seat by the next election; London, in particular inner London, continues to grow and grow; and Labour's small industrial towns are increasingly favouring the Conservatives. There are probably advantages to yhe Tories in doing it - the Welsh valleys, for example, are over represented - but it's nothing like the advantage it once was.
It's a very narrow idea, in any case, regardless of the political/gerrymandering motives behind it. I have never grasped why having 600 MPs selected by FPP is any more democratic than having 650 MPs selected by FPP. I suspect Boris thinks it's too much trouble – bound to be controversial and cause unnecessary aggravation for no clear dividend.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
Good question.
America, a country many times our size only has 435 Representatives in the Lower House and 100 Senators in the Upper House France has only 577 in the Lower House and 348 in the Senate
I think we could cope with 300 MPs. We can certainly cope with 600.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
Other countries with other languages exist you know.
Even with a decent sized majority, stuff like that is going to struggle to get through.
The antics of the anti-Brexit MPs really have opened Pandora’s box of constitutional vandalism, but the government would be better off trying to get it closed again.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
Other countries with other languages exist you know.
And in those countries they can pronounce their words how they like. :-)
Even with a decent sized majority, stuff like that is going to struggle to get through.
The antics of the anti-Brexit MPs really have opened Pandora’s box of constitutional vandalism, but the government would be better off trying to get it closed again.
I can't quite work out what they think they achieve by doing this. It just opens the prospect of future governments doing the same. Imagine a supreme court stuffed full of Corbynites.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
I seem to have touched a nerve! Though as a latte is the worst coffee drink (other than my mum's vile Mellow Birds muck) then I never have to say it either.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
I’m fairly certain it’s a word in the Italian language, hence the pronunciation.
Mrs May demonstrating why former PMs should continue to serve.
Indeed, and unusual in recent times. She messed up as PM, but still believes in the calling of public service, representing the people of Maidenhead.
She also appears to think she still has role in representing the people of Scotland. Sorry luv, that ship has sailed.
Like all other UK MPs she is 1/650th of the representation for Scotland on non-devolved matters. If you'd won your referendum it would be different, but you didn't and you've got most of a generation to wait to change that now.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
Other countries with other languages exist you know.
And in those countries they can pronounce their words how they like. :-)
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
If you're saying latte you're doing it wrong in the first place, the liberal elites are all drinking Cortados, sometimes with oat milk.
Mrs May demonstrating why former PMs should continue to serve.
Indeed, and unusual in recent times. She messed up as PM, but still believes in the calling of public service, representing the people of Maidenhead.
She also appears to think she still has role in representing the people of Scotland. Sorry luv, that ship has sailed.
Like all other UK MPs she is 1/650th of the representation for Scotland on non-devolved matters. If you'd won your referendum it would be different, but you didn't and you've got most of a generation to wait to change that now.
Still waiting for Nicola to use Scotland's teenage pregnancy stats to insist that a generation is 14 years at most.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
If you're saying latte you're doing it wrong in the first place, the liberal elites are all drinking Cortados, sometimes with oat milk.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
I’m fairly certain it’s a word in the Italian language, hence the pronunciation.
It's much fun watching English speakers ask for a latte in Italian coffee shops and getting a glass of milk
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
If you're saying latte you're doing it wrong in the first place, the liberal elites are all drinking Cortados, sometimes with oat milk.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
If you're saying latte you're doing it wrong in the first place, the liberal elites are all drinking Cortados, sometimes with oat milk.
Unbelievably there is no mention today at all of implementing Boundary changes or introducing a Bill such that the Boundary Commission does its next review with 650 MPs and speed up next review so it definitely gets done in time for next GE.
See link - pages 126 and 127 - for full details of plans re "Constitution and democracy"
Both Cameron and May failed to get this through. It is simply breathtaking that Boris should take any risk with this. A Bill should be passed immediately returning to 650 MPs and for Boundary Commission to then start review (which takes over 2 years to complete) immediately such that Boundary Commission then reports in 2022 - not September 2023 as currently scheduled which is cutting it far too fine.
Why on Earth would Boris risk angering his own MPs by cutting their seats?
Now it is the Labour cities which are growing - Manchester and Liverpool will probably both merit an extra seat by the next election; London, in particular inner London, continues to grow and grow; and Labour's small industrial towns are increasingly favouring the Conservatives. There are probably advantages to yhe Tories in doing it - the Welsh valleys, for example, are over represented - but it's nothing like the advantage it once was.
It's a very narrow idea, in any case, regardless of the political/gerrymandering motives behind it. I have never grasped why having 600 MPs selected by FPP is any more democratic than having 650 MPs selected by FPP. I suspect Boris thinks it's too much trouble – bound to be controversial and cause unnecessary aggravation for no clear dividend.
The move to 600 MPs instead of 650 was IIRC about saving a small but still real amount of money. As such it has my support.
Then why not cut to 300 or 200 or 100? The amount saved is utterly trivial gesture politics of the worst kind, that would sack MPs for no good reason and reduce political representation.
Good question.
America, a country many times our size only has 435 Representatives in the Lower House and 100 Senators in the Upper House France has only 577 in the Lower House and 348 in the Senate
I think we could cope with 300 MPs. We can certainly cope with 600.
The US of A is a federal state, with much of what we do at the centre being done by the States. We could, and should, reduce the size of the Upper House. IIRC it's at least ten times the size it was a century or two ago.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
I’m fairly certain it’s a word in the Italian language, hence the pronunciation.
It's much fun watching English speakers ask for a latte in Italian coffee shops and getting a glass of milk
How did it become the world's maddest left wing echo chamber ?
Oh dear, she has made the mistake of stepping in on a trans-gender argument.
Which means she's be harried for the rest of her life by lunatics.
There's an unusual level of aggression around transgender matters. It iis only a matter of time until there is a full on move to remove the T from LGBT.
I think so. Either that or the 'L' just get up and leave.
Not being a metropolitan gay I'm not fully up to speed on all these schismatic groups; however, I do believe that there's already an LGB Alliance or something like it, which the orthodox LGBT activists and the Trans lobby despise, of course.
Personally I've never much liked the whole LGBT thing. It conflates sexuality with gender, which are if course clean different things.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
If you're saying latte you're doing it wrong in the first place, the liberal elites are all drinking Cortados, sometimes with oat milk.
Personally I prefer Almond milk...
No, nut milks are out because of the huge environmental damage they cause and because Oatly barista is the king of non-dairy now.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
If you're saying latte you're doing it wrong in the first place, the liberal elites are all drinking Cortados, sometimes with oat milk.
Personally I prefer Almond milk...
No, nut milks are out because of the huge environmental damage they cause and because Oatly barista is the king of non-dairy now.
Does that mean my membership application for the metropolitan elite club will be rejected?
Reading the Guardian report of the speech I see that 'One plan under consideration is to adopt a form of registration for foreign agents.' Somewhat boggling. Does that mean that spies from Russia or the EU or wherever will have to register as such and conform to a code of conduct?
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
Up in Cumbria lattes or cappuccinos are available pretty much everywhere. They do tend to pronounce the former as "latty" (to rhyme with batty) which makes me smile.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
I CANNNOT STAND the pronunciation of 'latte' as 'lar-tay'. Pronounced thus it is perhaps the ponciest word in the English language. In this part of the world we use the short 'a' and we place the emphasis on the first syllable of two-syllable words. (I always struggled with Cherie Blair - or, as I preferred, Cherry Blair - for the same reason.) Therefore, it's a latty. Correctness doesn't come into it.
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
If you're saying latte you're doing it wrong in the first place, the liberal elites are all drinking Cortados, sometimes with oat milk.
Personally I prefer Almond milk...
No, nut milks are out because of the huge environmental damage they cause and because Oatly barista is the king of non-dairy now.
Does that mean my membership application for the metropolitan elite club will be rejected?
It's a yellow card offence. You now have to name 4 types of avocado and pronounce quinoa 'properly' to redeem yourself.
Comments
LGB refer to preference whereas T is about gender.
Coupled with Mr Eagles’ claimed enjoyment of it, it sounds truly awful, but I suppose I will go and watch it at some point.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-10-2015/_vz4Mp.gif
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1207662939739754496?s=20
I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment...
So it’s just possible he’s a member or employee, in which case it would be legal.
But given his private resources, the optics are still awful.
JC - chuckles.
Fair play!
Talk about unintended consequences.
https://twitter.com/cjcmichel/status/1207687715078078464?s=20
For instance the quad of Coventry South, Cov NW, Kenilworth and Southam and Warwick and leamington which was 1 out of 4 Tory goes to
Cov South & Kenilworth, Con
Cov Northwest, Labour
Warwick And Leamington, Con
And Southam moves into Rugby which is also a very easy Con Hold
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1207688069211664384?s=20
https://twitter.com/_jackmckenna/status/1207623375444729857
At present it is like a rush hour train.
Salmond is the only SNP politician who I'd say I quite like. Hamza is ok too. Nothing against Sturgeon, but at Westminster they seem an unattractive bunch.
I know this is going over an argument that been on this site many times before, but, at the moment the UK is an out-lyer in terms of its parliament size, both HoC and HoL and I would like to reduse both of them.
I was back in Stoke last year and I went into what I would describe as a greasy spoon. I saw behind the counter they had a proper coffee machine and decided to order a double espresso.
The lady serving dumped said beverage into what I would describe as builders mug, only for the owner to appear from the back with absolute horror....telling her "I told you we now have them special cups for that"....to which the reply was "It all goes down the same doesn't it, anyway what's the point of those tiny things".
lol i hadnt seen this,,,
3 dead in shooting at FSB in Moscow.
Yes I know that's a bit condescending, but I'm part of the avocado-loving metropolitan elite, now, and sometimes I can't help myself. Still have gravy on chips, though, so not all is lost.
A class act - orders of magnitude more helpful than Boris was to her..
Personally I think that quite a full chamber, and the oppositon facing the government, has much to do with our lower levels of corruption than elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1207695991572484097?s=20
Happily, it's not a word I ever have cause to pronounce.
America, a country many times our size only has 435 Representatives in the Lower House and 100 Senators in the Upper House
France has only 577 in the Lower House and 348 in the Senate
I think we could cope with 300 MPs. We can certainly cope with 600.
The antics of the anti-Brexit MPs really have opened Pandora’s box of constitutional vandalism, but the government would be better off trying to get it closed again.
I mean if pineapple is then why not coffee?
She was on a contract and didn't have the contract renewed.
Personally I've never much liked the whole LGBT thing. It conflates sexuality with gender, which are if course clean different things.
https://twitter.com/brexitbroadcast/status/1207698759230074880
Somewhat boggling. Does that mean that spies from Russia or the EU or wherever will have to register as such and conform to a code of conduct?