Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson coming under pressure to sack the Number 10 advisor wh

SystemSystem Posts: 12,650
edited February 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson coming under pressure to sack the Number 10 advisor who backs forced sterilisation

WATCH: Transport secretary Grant Shapps refuses to condemn Andrew Sabisky, a new adviser at No 10 who called for forced sterilisation of young women. #Ridge pic.twitter.com/xaBbXKEfq2

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    First...like Roy out for England.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,296
    As someone who advocates the extinction of humankind, finally a policy I can identify with.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,424
    Cummings is Bannon, and will probably go the same way.

    A good campaigning mind, but nowhere near as clever as he thinks, prone to gross over-reach, and totally lacking in the caution and discipline needed to be involved in governing.

    At the moment, Johnson can afford bad headlines, and has political capital to burn. But that won't last forever, and then Cummings is finished.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,884
    SandyRentool said:

    As someone who advocates the extinction of humankind, finally a policy I can identify with.

    Who's going to see and record stuff if we're not around? Surely a minimal population of humankind adds something.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,810
    AlastairMeeks said:

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1229040183301038080?s=21

    Call: How many chav scum are we going to sterilise?

    Response: A MILLION!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,430
    If the aim is really to harness talent possessed by people who don't fit the stereotypical SPAD mould, questionable social media posts are surely to be expected - at the very least.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,470
    edited February 2020
    This is a Westminster bubble story.
    Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    Mr Sabisky is struggling to find support amongst my female friends and acquaintances.

    BTW, that is the highly sanitised version. Unlady-like language is being used.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    If the aim is really to harness talent possessed by people who don't fit the stereotypical SPAD mould, questionable social media posts are surely to be expected - at the very least.

    KIlling kids? Eugenics?

    Questionable? You need your head examined.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    I did point out at the time that the "Weirdos and Misfits" ad was sexist and likely to attract males who have a problem with women. See now?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,884
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    Cummings is Bannon, and will probably go the same way.

    A good campaigning mind, but nowhere near as clever as he thinks, prone to gross over-reach, and totally lacking in the caution and discipline needed to be involved in governing.

    At the moment, Johnson can afford bad headlines, and has political capital to burn. But that won't last forever, and then Cummings is finished.

    I've come round to the idea that Cummings might be quite bright. However it's quite clear that he wants to be seen as even brighter than that - he's not going to be able to carry that.

    The noise may become too much, and the delivery too little.

    The idea that Cummings is espousing though is 100% right - the government departments are crap, the arrangements of our state are questionable, and Johnny Everyone needs a bit of a kick.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    Re this story - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/new-chancellor-rishi-sunak-cashed-in-on-fund-that-helped-break-banks-rb7zgfqkz - and in response to @Philip_Thompson.

    I make no accusations against Sunak personally. But the role of TCI, one other fund and a well known US bank, along with various other funds with close links to RBS, has never been properly or fully told. It does not reflect well on them, the banks involved or the relevant regulatory authorities

    Some might consider that some of what went on was potentially criminal.

    I could not possibly comment.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,736
    Cyclefree said:

    Re this story - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/new-chancellor-rishi-sunak-cashed-in-on-fund-that-helped-break-banks-rb7zgfqkz - and in response to @Philip_Thompson.

    I make no accusations against Sunak personally. But the role of TCI, one other fund and a well known US bank, along with various other funds with close links to RBS, has never been properly or fully told. It does not reflect well on them, the banks involved or the relevant regulatory authorities

    Some might consider that some of what went on was potentially criminal.

    I could not possibly comment.

    You just did.... ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,235
    Good innings from Buttler but is it enough? Nip and tuck.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    Oh dear....just when it looked good for England. If those 2 had put on another 50, England would have won.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,468
    edited February 2020
    Like the bread from the Panasonic machine I just treated myself to as a belated Christmas treat, I suspect that he will make excellent toast very quickly...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,130
    The funny thing is, para sports often get compared with female sports.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    Omnium said:

    The idea that Cummings is espousing though is 100% right - the government departments are crap, the arrangements of our state are questionable, and Johnny Everyone needs a bit of a kick.

    And if a weirdo or misfit suggests that kick should involve a wall, a blindfold and an anti-aircraft gun?

    After all, FGM, eugenics and killing the odd child are, apparently, no bar to the policy unit. Executing some civil service deadwood should only be a mental warm-up for such giant intelllects.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,736
    edited February 2020
    Blue sky thinking is not going to be universally popular. Let the case be made in full and argued down, I say.

    I have some highly controversial views on what should happen for lives blighted by demntia. They might be quite mainstream by the end of this century.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,083
    MarqueeMark said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this story - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/new-chancellor-rishi-sunak-cashed-in-on-fund-that-helped-break-banks-rb7zgfqkz - and in response to @Philip_Thompson.

    I make no accusations against Sunak personally. But the role of TCI, one other fund and a well known US bank, along with various other funds with close links to RBS, has never been properly or fully told. It does not reflect well on them, the banks involved or the relevant regulatory authorities

    Some might consider that some of what went on was potentially criminal.

    I could not possibly comment.

    You just did.... ;)
    FrancisUrquhart should have made that comment
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    edited February 2020
    Gardenwalker said:

    This is a Westminster bubble story.
    Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.

    I saw that "savethebbc" was trending on twitter and expected to see 99% of people saying disgrace, Tory bastards etc etc etc. In fact, it was far more balanced, with a huge number of accounts with what looked like younger people (from their profile pics) saying I don't understand why not just have ads, why do I have to pay for something I don't really use.

    In addition to all the discussion from last night, another thing that has changed is that especially the young have grown up with all the services they use being funded by ads e.g. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    logical_song said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this story - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/new-chancellor-rishi-sunak-cashed-in-on-fund-that-helped-break-banks-rb7zgfqkz - and in response to @Philip_Thompson.

    I make no accusations against Sunak personally. But the role of TCI, one other fund and a well known US bank, along with various other funds with close links to RBS, has never been properly or fully told. It does not reflect well on them, the banks involved or the relevant regulatory authorities

    Some might consider that some of what went on was potentially criminal.

    I could not possibly comment.

    You just did.... ;)
    FrancisUrquhart should have made that comment
    On this matter, I definitely couldn't possible comment...cos I don't know anything about it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,470
    edited February 2020
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    This is a Westminster bubble story.
    Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.

    I saw that "savethebbc" was trending on twitter and expected to see 99% of people saying disgrace, Tory bastards etc etc etc. In fact, it was far more balanced, with a huge number of accounts with what looked like younger people (from their profile pics) saying I don't understand why not just have ads, why do I have to pay for something I don't really use.
    Boris (Cummings) seems intent to take on the BBC, the Treasury, and the judiciary.

    “The left” have wasted the last decade wanking on about trans rights and forgot what it means to maintain a liberal democracy.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    tlg86 said:

    The funny thing is, para sports often get compared with female sports.

    I have heard that comparison literally twice. From this chap. And now from you.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    South Africa now have to be favourites again. England going to need a Stokes special.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited February 2020
    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,884
    Beibheirli_C said:

    Omnium said:

    The idea that Cummings is espousing though is 100% right - the government departments are crap, the arrangements of our state are questionable, and Johnny Everyone needs a bit of a kick.

    And if a weirdo or misfit suggests that kick should involve a wall, a blindfold and an anti-aircraft gun?

    After all, FGM, eugenics and killing the odd child are, apparently, no bar to the policy unit. Executing some civil service deadwood should only be a mental warm-up for such giant intelllects.
    We vote on this, and what seems bad to you will seem bad to many. Thus it won't happen. We also have the nanny HoL - although that is an increasingly pointless institution.

    I'm completely happy to see a million people die for the greater good, but I'm sure that the evidence available will never be enough for me to find it a greater good.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,842
    MarqueeMark said:

    Blue sky thinking is not going to be universally popular. Let the case be made in full and argued down, I say.

    I have some highly controversial views on what should happen for lives blighted by demntia. They might be quite mainstream by the end of this century.

    hardly similar to neutering the plebs and deciding only whacko's in your own mould etc are allowed to procreate. This is how the nazis started off.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    It's just impossible to take seriously the comments of anyone who doesn't understand the difference between "contraception" and "sterilisation".
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    Ghost of Sir Sheath Joseph says hello.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,186
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/15/new-attorney-general-suella-braverman-in-controversial-buddhist-sect
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    MarqueeMark said:

    Blue sky thinking is not going to be universally popular. Let the case be made in full and argued down, I say.

    I have some highly controversial views on what should happen for lives blighted by demntia. They might be quite mainstream by the end of this century.

    If 'by the end of the century" is allowed, that opens up a pandora's box of potential policy ideas.

    I have loads. One of my favourites is piano tuition and French lessons for the unemployed. Free of charge and compulsory. Imagine the impact.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,669
    Malan looking short of inspiration.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,235
    Very ordinary innings from Malan. Not much cricket to be fair.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    This is a Westminster bubble story.
    Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.

    I saw that "savethebbc" was trending on twitter and expected to see 99% of people saying disgrace, Tory bastards etc etc etc. In fact, it was far more balanced, with a huge number of accounts with what looked like younger people (from their profile pics) saying I don't understand why not just have ads, why do I have to pay for something I don't really use.

    In addition to all the discussion from last night, another thing that has changed is that especially the young have grown up with all the services they use being funded by ads e.g. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram.
    The BBC is a bloated monolith failing to compete within a highly competitive and already private sector.

    We aren't talking about privatisation of the media here, the BBC is not the be all and end all, the sector is already private.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    edited February 2020
    Nigelb said:

    Malan looking short of inspiration.

    That was actually a really good wicket for England, he was so out of touch he was just making it harder to chase down the total. When you have Stokes and Ali to come.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    Learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

    https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1207614350363631616

    The whole thread on Labour's responses to 1983 is worth a read, how far the same problems remain, is another matter.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,184
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    If the aim is really to harness talent possessed by people who don't fit the stereotypical SPAD mould, questionable social media posts are surely to be expected - at the very least.

    If they were that "talented" they would know how to conduct themselves on social media.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Nigelb said:

    Malan looking short of inspiration.

    That was actually a really good wicket for England, he was so out of touch he was just making it harder to chase down the total. When you have Stokes and Ali to come.
    Don't understand why he came in before Stokes.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    No_Offence_Alan said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    If the aim is really to harness talent possessed by people who don't fit the stereotypical SPAD mould, questionable social media posts are surely to be expected - at the very least.

    If they were that "talented" they would know how to conduct themselves on social media.
    Not necessarily.

    The problem with this guy is not that his thoughts are inflammatory. It’s that they are inflammatory and gormless. All the media training in the world won’t make him less gormless.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,573
    I ask again, is there a book on Cumming's leaving date?

    I doubt he will make the end of 2020.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,296
    Andy_JS said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/15/new-attorney-general-suella-braverman-in-controversial-buddhist-sect

    I have some knowledge of the Triratna. Putting aside the dodgy activities of the founder I am not aware of anything untoward in the organisation today.

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    So we have posters here supporting FGM, eugenics, child abuse and now euthanasia of the elderley.....

    Unbelievable.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,470
    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,296
    Beibheirli_C said:

    So we have posters here supporting FGM, eugenics, child abuse and now euthanasia of the elderley.....

    Unbelievable.

    We've even got one who supports AV.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Gardenwalker said:

    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?

    What's special about being small-c conservative?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,130
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    The funny thing is, para sports often get compared with female sports.

    I have heard that comparison literally twice. From this chap. And now from you.
    Just to clarify, the comparison is usually made in reverse. That is, para sports are put on the same level as female sports. In my opinion that’s not right because the number of eligible participants in female sports is greater. I just find it amusing that this knob is of the same opinion as those who think we should compare those who achieve success in female sports.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,489
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    This is a Westminster bubble story.
    Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.

    I saw that "savethebbc" was trending on twitter and expected to see 99% of people saying disgrace, Tory bastards etc etc etc. In fact, it was far more balanced, with a huge number of accounts with what looked like younger people (from their profile pics) saying I don't understand why not just have ads, why do I have to pay for something I don't really use.

    In addition to all the discussion from last night, another thing that has changed is that especially the young have grown up with all the services they use being funded by ads e.g. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram.
    I like the BBC on the whole, even though I hardly watch TV, I do like the radio, BBC podcasts, and the BBC website. That said, a licence for a broadcast service for television receivers and radio, that was created when the BBC had a complete monopoly is clearly at odds with a world where people don't watch broadcasts, don't use TVs to view programmes, and the BBC holds an ever diminishing part of the audience share.

    For young people in particular there is no quesiton that the whole premise of the BBC and licence fee is irrelevant to most of them. The world has already changed and the government and parliament can only put off dealing with that change for so long.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    Can't say I remember this warning (!) but OK, perhaps I missed it. So imagine if we both win the away game. We'll have publicly owned trains but women won't be allowed on without a chaperone.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,573
    Gardenwalker said:

    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?

    Good question.

    The purpose I suspect is to stop BBC journalism reporting on what Johnson's shower are up to.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rottenborough said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?

    Good question.

    The purpose I suspect is to stop BBC journalism reporting on what Johnson's shower are up to.
    Because in the year 2020 journalism = BBC right? There's no other 2/7 media out there online or elsewhere?

    There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,573
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1229047735606824960
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    tlg86 said:

    Just to clarify, the comparison is usually made in reverse. That is, para sports are put on the same level as female sports. In my opinion that’s not right because the number of eligible participants in female sports is greater. I just find it amusing that this knob is of the same opinion as those who think we should compare those who achieve success in female sports.

    Sorry, you mean which of the following is common -

    (i) Women complaining that female sports are ranked down with para sports.

    (ii) Paras complaining that para sports are ranked down with female sports.

    Or am I still missing it?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,470
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?

    What's special about being small-c conservative?
    Dunno. What’s special about liberal democracy?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,573
    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1229039840248967168
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    Gardenwalker said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?

    What's special about being small-c conservative?
    Dunno. What’s special about liberal democracy?
    You will find out after Cummings's jackboot brigade kicks your door in for being too old, too young or female....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    Oh Stokes, you didn't need to do that.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    Wrong sort of news reporting.

    https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1229050421680988160
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,575
    Amazing T20
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,130
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Just to clarify, the comparison is usually made in reverse. That is, para sports are put on the same level as female sports. In my opinion that’s not right because the number of eligible participants in female sports is greater. I just find it amusing that this knob is of the same opinion as those who think we should compare those who achieve success in female sports.

    Sorry, you mean which of the following is common -

    (i) Women complaining that female sports are ranked down with para sports.

    (ii) Paras complaining that para sports are ranked down with female sports.

    Or am I still missing it?
    What I mean is, the para movement tries to big up the significance of para sports by saying it’s no different to female sports (I.e. the participants are limited by something - gender or disability).
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Gardenwalker said:

    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?

    "But his premiership will almost certainly reveal a contempt for rules, precedent, order and stability."

    Not wrong.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,575
    England 3 to win with 7 balls
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,575
    England win
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,235
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    England 3 to win with 7 balls

    Easy. Unbelievable. That ball just flies in the veldt. 7 sixes from Morgan.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,573
    dr_spyn said:

    Wrong sort of news reporting.

    https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1229050421680988160

    They are not there to be your friends Angela.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    Always said T20 is rubbish ;-)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,573
    Beibheirli_C said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?

    What's special about being small-c conservative?
    Dunno. What’s special about liberal democracy?
    You will find out after Cummings's jackboot brigade kicks your door in for being too old, too young or female....
    The future is the sound of Cummings laughing manically over and over again.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,470
    dr_spyn said:

    Wrong sort of news reporting.

    https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1229050421680988160

    Classic example right here.
    Angela Rayner is too thick to realise that she is helping to dig the BBC’s grave.

    Why does she think we need it to remain as a public service broadcaster if she “is no big fan” of it?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,575
    The shocking videos of the flooding must ask the question how on earth do we provide flood defences for such inundation.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,776
    Gardenwalker said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Wrong sort of news reporting.

    https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1229050421680988160

    Classic example right here.
    Angela Rayner is too thick to realise that she is helping to dig the BBC’s grave.

    Why does she think we need it to remain as a public service broadcaster if she “is no big fan” of it?
    These are the weasel words of someone who wants to see the BBC gone with a fig leaf of deniability.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Gardenwalker said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    The EU, the BBC, the judiciary, parliamentary scrutiny, the HoL, and the Treasury - none are immune to reasonable criticism.

    It is clear now though that Boris (Cummings) intends to castrate each in turn.

    What purpose is intended?
    In what way is this conservative?

    What's special about being small-c conservative?
    Dunno. What’s special about liberal democracy?
    Its the best way of ensuring people have the freedom to control their own lives and what happens with their future. People should be free to run their own lives and government should only happen with the consent of the governed. It allows the free flow of ideas and allows the safe removal of tired and unpopular governments without violence.

    That's for starters.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,653
    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    tlg86 said:

    What I mean is, the para movement tries to big up the significance of para sports by saying it’s no different to female sports (I.e. the participants are limited by something - gender or disability).

    Ah OK, got you. I still have never heard that (until here and now from you). And my 1st instinct is not keen. No, I will not be running - or throwing or jumping - with that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    Toby all over Free Speech like a rash -

    "Join me in the Free Speech Union and together we can defeat the authoritarianism and intolerance that is once again threatening to destroy our liberty." pic.twitter.com/TgVQ068xNO

    — The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) February 16, 2020
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1242994/boris-johnson-news-northern-ireland-united-brexit-julian-smith-sajid-javid-reshuffle
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Gardenwalker said:

    This is a Westminster bubble story.
    Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.

    I wouldn't worry about the BBC, the probability that anything will happen is inversely proportional to the amount of "leaking" of the government's intentions.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,296
    So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.

    Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.

    So which party wants rid?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,186
    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,573
    SandyRentool said:

    So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.

    Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.

    So which party wants rid?

    Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.

    MPs will not know what has hit them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,575
    Andy_JS said:

    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5

    Not sure that is relevant in these days
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rottenborough said:

    SandyRentool said:

    So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.

    Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.

    So which party wants rid?

    Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.

    MPs will not know what has hit them.
    If Radio 2 is great surely people will pay voluntarily to keep it?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,470
    edited February 2020
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5

    Not sure that is relevant in these days
    Actually more relevant than ever as Boris breaks down the norms around ministerial accountability.

    We still don’t have the full details on L’Affaire Arcuri, nor who paid for that villa.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,767
    Gardenwalker said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Wrong sort of news reporting.

    https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1229050421680988160

    Classic example right here.
    Angela Rayner is too thick to realise that she is helping to dig the BBC’s grave.

    Why does she think we need it to remain as a public service broadcaster if she “is no big fan” of it?
    Because it doesn't ingratiate itself with either side? If he said "I love the BBC and we've got to keep it" it would help the allegation that they're biased to the left.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,575
    rottenborough said:

    SandyRentool said:

    So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.

    Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.

    So which party wants rid?

    Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.

    MPs will not know what has hit them.
    You do seem upset about the BBC as many will be but they cannot continue to charge a poll tax on everyone, no matter even if they do not watch the BBC

    Times are changing fast and the BBC are going to have to come up with a funding model that is not paid by tax
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    viewcode said:

    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
    Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?

    Because all I can see is a somewhat heavy-handed idea to reduce teenage pregnancy rates.

    Absolutely nothing suggesting that defined groups of people shouldn't be allowed to ever reproduce at any life stage.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    rottenborough said:

    SandyRentool said:

    So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.

    Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.

    So which party wants rid?

    Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.

    MPs will not know what has hit them.
    Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Andy_JS said:

    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5

    Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,653
    edited February 2020
    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
    Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/16/johnson-coming-under-pressure-to-sack-the-number-10-advisor-who-backs-forced-sterilisation/

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,575
    Gardenwalker said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5

    Not sure that is relevant in these days
    Actually more relevant than ever as Boris breaks down the norms around ministerial accountability.

    We still don’t have the full details on L’Affaire Arcuri, nor who paid for that villa.
    It is accepted that a woman is not dependent on her husband and vice versa

    If she is involved that is different, but I assume you are not accusing her of this
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,665
    .
    matt said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5

    Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
    I thought it was the sins of your father, not your spouse. :p
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,653
    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
    Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/16/johnson-coming-under-pressure-to-sack-the-number-10-advisor-who-backs-forced-sterilisation/

    The clue is in the link


  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    matt said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5

    Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
    No, he should. And people should go to prison for just looking the way those two look.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,575
    Gardenwalker said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5

    Not sure that is relevant in these days
    Actually more relevant than ever as Boris breaks down the norms around ministerial accountability.

    We still don’t have the full details on L’Affaire Arcuri, nor who paid for that villa.
    There is no doubt that Boris and Cummings are really getting to their opponents as has been evidenced on this forum over the last 24 hours

    However, all that matters is the voters and Boris will win or lose entirely on how he performs in their eyes, not some figure in the background
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    Gardenwalker said:

    Actually more relevant than ever as Boris breaks down the norms around ministerial accountability.

    We still don’t have the full details on L’Affaire Arcuri, nor who paid for that villa.

    We do urgently need an answer on the villa. 55 year old men with good jobs and money in the bank usually pay for their own holidays. And more generally if Johnson is taking emoluments from 3rd parties, the country has a right to know who they are and what the quid pro quo might be. We can shrug and say it's just "Boris being Boris" but it must be a properly informed shrug.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    viewcode said:

    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
    Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/16/johnson-coming-under-pressure-to-sack-the-number-10-advisor-who-backs-forced-sterilisation/

    Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".

    Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,005
    Henrietta2 said:

    Has there been anything in the press recently about Dominic Cummings's needed surgery? It was supposed to have been scheduled for early November, and then for early February. I have no idea whether there's some Sun Tzuian "cheng and ch'i" involved but whatever the position I wish him the best of health.

    I was wondering that. He was walking a bit funny the other day, I noticed.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    edited February 2020
    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
    Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/16/johnson-coming-under-pressure-to-sack-the-number-10-advisor-who-backs-forced-sterilisation/

    Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".

    Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/andrew-sabisky-political-forecaster/

    "Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Beibheirli_C said:

    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
    Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/16/johnson-coming-under-pressure-to-sack-the-number-10-advisor-who-backs-forced-sterilisation/

    Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".

    Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/andrew-sabisky-political-forecaster/

    "Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
    So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.

    This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,665
    Beibheirli_C said:

    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    Endillion said:

    viewcode said:

    BluestBlue said:

    The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.

    Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!

    You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
    Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/16/johnson-coming-under-pressure-to-sack-the-number-10-advisor-who-backs-forced-sterilisation/

    Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".

    Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/andrew-sabisky-political-forecaster/

    "Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
    As unpalatable as it might be, it's already done with abortions of babies with severe disabilities.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,842
    matt said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Husband of business minister Amanda Solloway in 11-year ban

    The department now run by the newly promoted minister disqualified her spouse from running a company until April 2029"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/husband-of-business-minister-amanda-solloway-in-11-year-ban-hfg7097x5

    Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
    Typical Tories , all bent as a three bob bit
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025