politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Compulsory face mask wearing – the Brexit divide

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

MrEd said:

FPT and off topic (so apologies)

It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.

So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?

The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.

China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.

Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/china-army/

To be fair, China has had nuclear weapons for more 60 years - so they have always had the ability to wipe out a US carrier group. However, what they don't have is the ability to do it without provoking WW3.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Isn't it just the equivalent of a whipped vote? Hard to see how that is fascist.

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1283464142557450241

I always thought that the Govt explicitly wasn’t supposed to be involved in committee selections*? How can votes on composition/chairmanship be subject to whipping? Or is there something different about this particular committee?

*i have some memory years ago of a big fuss when the Blair govt tried to rig the committees.

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?

Pro_Rata said:

Tory majority -2.

Slightly, but not entirely, facetious question. Do we think Johnson makes it to 2024 without losing his formal majority?

Is that a new poll

Phil said:

A lot of that “white culture” poster is specific to WASP culture, surely?

Yes, it looks to me as if some of it draws on Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', a brilliant account of why capitalism emerged in the UK and later the USA as a consequence partly of religious beliefs, in particular Protestantism/Calvinism. That culture was, of course, specifically White, and it remains a very powerful culture, in new variants, in the USA. This does not preclude similar values being adopted elsewhere, for example in the Far East or South East Asia.

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt

Looks like total war between backbench MPs and Cummings from now on.

Only one side can survive now.

stodge said:

Evening all

Some fascinating US polling today. Rasmussen has Biden only three points up on Trump (47-44) which is a big swing to Trump from last week. As I can't access the crosstabs, the only nugget I have is Independents favour Biden by six this week compared with twelve last week.

Economist/YouGov has enormous crosstabs:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/hpupr0zhkl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 125 has the key numbers. Biden leads Trump 49-40 with a one point Trump lead among men (46-45) outbalanced by a 17 point Biden lead among women (52-35).

Trump leads 49-42 among White voters but Biden is up 46-40 in the Midwest and tied 45-45 in the South so an excellent poll for the Democrat challenger.

The CNBC/Change Research Poll crosstabs aren't very helpful:

https://9b1b5e59-cb8d-4d7b-8493-111f8aa90329.usrfiles.com/ugd/9b1b5e_cabe0094cdf847dc8a2f12309173b8dd.pdf

Biden leads 51-41. I did note 55% of the sample were women which looks a little high and would skew the numbers toward Biden based on the above.

If anyone can access the Rasmussen crosstabs they would be very interesting.

Rasmussen are of course known for overstaying the GOP. The other 4 polls released today all showed Biden leading by 8-10 pojnts

Pro_Rata said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pro_Rata said:

Tory majority -2.

Slightly, but not entirely, facetious question. Do we think Johnson makes it to 2024 without losing his formal majority?

Is that a new poll

A whip removal formally reduces the majority by 2, even if, in practice Lewis continues to caucus Tory.

I see what you mean

I do not think Boris will be in place in 2024 but the majority will be around 80 less the odd resignation

tlg86 said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

kle4 said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

Peak Woke?

Truly bizarre

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651?s=20

I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -

THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY:
The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.

Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.

Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.

And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.

lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others

https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1283463753481297920?s=20


Here's the relevant literature from the museum


https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

I even went through history and found you the original source, all the way back in 1990, and mad academic Judith H Katz


http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

You can thank me later

The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".

My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.

I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.

No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:

"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."

http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:

It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"

I stand corrected.
After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.

I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.

If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.

I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.

I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke".
Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.

Andy_JS said:

squareroot2 said:

Its not rocket science. wearing masks must be compulsory.

In Switzerland, where everything is usually compulsory if it isn't illegal, it's apparently not a requirement to wear a mask (apart from public transport, which was only introduced on 1st July). Interesting.

That's a very weird caricature, Andy. Switzerland is not in the least authoritarian in legislation. It's conformist, a different trait. It's entirely typical that they'll leave it to people to decide to wear masks and nearly everyone in the cities will.

Malmesbury said:

Northern_Al said:

Phil said:

A lot of that “white culture” poster is specific to WASP culture, surely?

Yes, it looks to me as if some of it draws on Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', a brilliant account of why capitalism emerged in the UK and later the USA as a consequence partly of religious beliefs, in particular Protestantism/Calvinism. That culture was, of course, specifically White, and it remains a very powerful culture, in new variants, in the USA. This does not preclude similar values being adopted elsewhere, for example in the Far East or South East Asia.

Brilliant... if you ignore the evidence that plenty of other cultures discovered that freedom of thought combined with intellectualism and hard work produced results.

Have you read it? Your comment is not particularly relevant to, nor does it refute, Weber's argument at all.

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?

Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.

matthiasfromhamburg said:

tlg86 said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

kle4 said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

Peak Woke?

Truly bizarre

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651?s=20

I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -

THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY:
The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.

Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.

Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.

And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.

lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others

https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1283463753481297920?s=20


Here's the relevant literature from the museum


https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

I even went through history and found you the original source, all the way back in 1990, and mad academic Judith H Katz


http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

You can thank me later

The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".

My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.

I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.

No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:

"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."

http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:

It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"

I stand corrected.
After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.

I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.

If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.

I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.

I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke".
Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.

I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.

rottenborough said:

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt

Looks like total war between backbench MPs and Cummings from now on.

Only one side can survive now.

One small and foolish step of authoritarianism by the government which helps SKS most. The sort of event which makes centrists (the ones every party needs the votes of actually to win) stop and think.

Cummings keeps his job. Lewis loses the whip. Which one has behaved badly in the eyes of voters?

Nigelb said:

I see Softbank are putting ARM up for sale again...

That's interesting. A very small number of Acorn shares paid for the conservatory I am sitting in when ARM sold up.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1283487736163377152

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1283442982574751745

Excellent. Classic Grayling.

Not quite

Labour/SNP saw a chance to embarrass the government (fair play)

Lewis broke ranks because he was offered an attractive bribe.

Blimey.

Arsenal leading

Big_G_NorthWales said:

algarkirk said:

rottenborough said:

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt

Looks like total war between backbench MPs and Cummings from now on.

Only one side can survive now.

One small and foolish step of authoritarianism by the government which helps SKS most. The sort of event which makes centrists (the ones every party needs the votes of actually to win) stop and think.

Cummings keeps his job. Lewis loses the whip. Which one has behaved badly in the eyes of voters?

I think it is generally accepted in politics if you collude with the opposition you lose the whip

It is central to the function of select committees that they are run by back benchers not the government of the day, so in this case it does not apply.

Northern_Al said:

Malmesbury said:

Northern_Al said:

Phil said:

A lot of that “white culture” poster is specific to WASP culture, surely?

Yes, it looks to me as if some of it draws on Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', a brilliant account of why capitalism emerged in the UK and later the USA as a consequence partly of religious beliefs, in particular Protestantism/Calvinism. That culture was, of course, specifically White, and it remains a very powerful culture, in new variants, in the USA. This does not preclude similar values being adopted elsewhere, for example in the Far East or South East Asia.

Brilliant... if you ignore the evidence that plenty of other cultures discovered that freedom of thought combined with intellectualism and hard work produced results.

Have you read it? Your comment is not particularly relevant to, nor does it refute, Weber's argument at all.

I have. It seemed rather Western centric in its thesis.

tlg86 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Arsenal are very poor tonight

Having said that they have just equalised v Liverpool

Great work!

Brentford will make short work of both these teams next season.

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1283442982574751745

Excellent. Classic Grayling.

Not quite

Labour/SNP saw a chance to embarrass the government (fair play)

Lewis broke ranks because he was offered an attractive bribe.

Yes, had he voted for someone else he’d look more principled.

Stuartinromford said:

rottenborough said:

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt

Looks like total war between backbench MPs and Cummings from now on.

Only one side can survive now.

Are we sure this is Cummings? Could just be Johnson being a petulant toddler.

Has he grown up that much recently?

not_on_fire said:

stodge said:

Evening all

Some fascinating US polling today. Rasmussen has Biden only three points up on Trump (47-44) which is a big swing to Trump from last week. As I can't access the crosstabs, the only nugget I have is Independents favour Biden by six this week compared with twelve last week.

Economist/YouGov has enormous crosstabs:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/hpupr0zhkl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 125 has the key numbers. Biden leads Trump 49-40 with a one point Trump lead among men (46-45) outbalanced by a 17 point Biden lead among women (52-35).

Trump leads 49-42 among White voters but Biden is up 46-40 in the Midwest and tied 45-45 in the South so an excellent poll for the Democrat challenger.

The CNBC/Change Research Poll crosstabs aren't very helpful:

https://9b1b5e59-cb8d-4d7b-8493-111f8aa90329.usrfiles.com/ugd/9b1b5e_cabe0094cdf847dc8a2f12309173b8dd.pdf

Biden leads 51-41. I did note 55% of the sample were women which looks a little high and would skew the numbers toward Biden based on the above.

If anyone can access the Rasmussen crosstabs they would be very interesting.

Rasmussen are of course known for overstaying the GOP. The other 4 polls released today all showed Biden leading by 8-10 pojnts

Rasmussen's final poll in 2016 had Hillary up by 2%, she won the popular vote by 2%

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?

Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.

Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.

There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.

Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?

Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.

Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.

There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.

Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.

Probably just a convention and not a rule.

So what does BoZo offer Grayling now (and make sure he gets it) to avoid another really pissed off Tory?

Just when you think this government has found the bottom, it finds a new low to sink to.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1283494555673821190

https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1283460840059002885

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?

Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.

Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.

There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.

Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.

I don’t think it needs a Tory chair - that’s an implicit assumption of the Committee composition. But the issue is whether he owes his position on the Committee to taking the Tory whip in the first place. If he’s not on the Committee he can’t be chairman.

Indeed that was my question. I'm pretty sure a defector lost their committee spot last year in similar circumstances, I think it was a woman who'd defected from Labour from memory but I can't remember who.

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

stodge said:

Evening all

Some fascinating US polling today. Rasmussen has Biden only three points up on Trump (47-44) which is a big swing to Trump from last week. As I can't access the crosstabs, the only nugget I have is Independents favour Biden by six this week compared with twelve last week.

Economist/YouGov has enormous crosstabs:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/hpupr0zhkl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 125 has the key numbers. Biden leads Trump 49-40 with a one point Trump lead among men (46-45) outbalanced by a 17 point Biden lead among women (52-35).

Trump leads 49-42 among White voters but Biden is up 46-40 in the Midwest and tied 45-45 in the South so an excellent poll for the Democrat challenger.

The CNBC/Change Research Poll crosstabs aren't very helpful:

https://9b1b5e59-cb8d-4d7b-8493-111f8aa90329.usrfiles.com/ugd/9b1b5e_cabe0094cdf847dc8a2f12309173b8dd.pdf

Biden leads 51-41. I did note 55% of the sample were women which looks a little high and would skew the numbers toward Biden based on the above.

If anyone can access the Rasmussen crosstabs they would be very interesting.

Rasmussen are of course known for overstaying the GOP. The other 4 polls released today all showed Biden leading by 8-10 pojnts

Rasmussen's final poll in 2016 had Hillary up by 2%, she won the popular vote by 2%

Thanks for the tip. So it really is down to the state polling. The national picture again is too close to call.

stodge said:

rcs1000 said:

Those are better results for Biden in Florida and Arizona that I would have expected. I wonder if - in both - it is a reaction to the renewed CV-19 outbreak.

IF Biden takes those five states, he's comfortably home and nowhere else matters though obviously Senate and House races will.

If Biden takes Florida, he's got 261 electoral college votes, and at that point he just needs one of - Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina.

That being said... Florida swung against the Dems in 2018, so I wouldn't count on it if I were Joe Biden.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1283494555673821190

https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1283460840059002885

Stig Abell's tweet sums up the hilarity of what should be a serious issue.

https://twitter.com/connorjbyrne/status/1283494781314895873

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?

Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.

Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.

There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.

Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.

Are you sure? I think Sarah Wollaston remained chair of the health committee throughout her party meanderings in the last parliament.

I believe you are correct.

Mexicanpete said:

Stig Abell's tweet sums up the hilarity of what should be a serious issue.

And of course Grayling is still on the committee. He has to go the meetings and listen to Lewis tell him to shut up.

https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1283482719259955202

I suspect that neither Cummings nor Johnson really understand that much about Parliamentary politics. Johnson because he’s too lazy to get involved in it, and Cummings because he’s just got no interest in it. And therefore has a tendency to underestimate how much trouble it can cause the Govt. They got away with this, indeed were perhaps even helped by it in the last months of the previous Parliament because they were able to set up a Parliament vs the People situation. This is not actually an option with another election still four years away.

rcs1000 said:

tlg86 said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

tlg86 said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

kle4 said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

Peak Woke?

Truly bizarre

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651?s=20

I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -

THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY:
The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.

Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.

Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.

And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.

lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others

https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1283463753481297920?s=20


Here's the relevant literature from the museum


https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

I even went through history and found you the original source, all the way back in 1990, and mad academic Judith H Katz


http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

You can thank me later

The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".

My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions,
associating things which these people
perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.

I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.

No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:

"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."

http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:

It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"

I stand corrected.
After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.

I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.

If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.

I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a
synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.

I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke".
Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.

I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.

I had this argument with my kids (10 and 12 years old) - I said, "if I can be gender fluid, why can't I be species fluid? - why can't I self identify as a dog?"

What or who is stopping you from doing so?

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?

Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.

Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.

There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.

Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.

Are you sure? I think Sarah Wollaston remained chair of the health committee throughout her party meanderings in the last parliament.

No I'm not sure. I just seem to recall Labour demanding they got "their" spot back on a select committee after a defection but I am going off memory and I can't remember who it was.

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

tlg86 said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

tlg86 said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

kle4 said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

Peak Woke?

Truly bizarre

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651?s=20

I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -

THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY:
The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.

Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.

Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.

And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.

lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others

https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1283463753481297920?s=20


Here's the relevant literature from the museum


https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

I even went through history and found you the original source, all the way back in 1990, and mad academic Judith H Katz


http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

You can thank me later

The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".

My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions,
associating things which these people
perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.

I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.

No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:

"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."

http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:

It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"

I stand corrected.
After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.

I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.

If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.

I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a
synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.

I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke".
Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.

I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.

I had this argument with my kids (10 and 12 years old) - I said, "if I can be gender fluid, why can't I be species fluid? - why can't I self identify as a dog?"

What or who is stopping you from doing so?

Access to Doctors’ surgeries? Unless you self identify as a guide dog.

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

tlg86 said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

tlg86 said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

kle4 said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

Peak Woke?

Truly bizarre

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651?s=20

I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -

THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY:
The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.

Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.

Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.

And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.

lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others

https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1283463753481297920?s=20


Here's the relevant literature from the museum


https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

I even went through history and found you the original source, all the way back in 1990, and mad academic Judith H Katz


http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

You can thank me later

The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".

My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions,
associating things which these people
perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.

I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.

No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:

"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."

http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:

It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"

I stand corrected.
After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.

I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.

If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.

I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a
synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.

I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke".
Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.

I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.

I had this argument with my kids (10 and 12 years old) - I said, "if I can be gender fluid, why can't I be species fluid? - why can't I self identify as a dog?"

What or who is stopping you from doing so?

"On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog". Famous New Yorker cartoon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1283498662769971200

I'm afraid I am pessimistic enough to think we'll get the evidence in November.

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1283442982574751745

Excellent. Classic Grayling.

Not quite

Labour/SNP saw a chance to embarrass the government (fair play)

Lewis broke ranks because he was offered an attractive bribe.

Bribe is such an unpleasant little word under these circumstances. Incentive is much more attractive.

Philip_Thompson said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

alex_ said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?

Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.

Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.

There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.

Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.

Are you sure? I think Sarah Wollaston remained chair of the health committee throughout her party meanderings in the last parliament.

No I'm not sure. I just seem to recall Labour demanding they got "their" spot back on a select committee after a defection but I am going off memory and I can't remember who it was.

It appears they wanted to, but couldn’t.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-launches-bid-to-purge-independent-group-mps-from-commons-committees

Parties are allocated spots according to House of Commons composition at the start of the Parliament, but once elected committee members appear free to do what they want.

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1283475000176017408

Cummings is a complete fascist

Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.

Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.

Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks

On an unwhipped vote surely?

Not every MP who breaks the whip loses the whip normally, let alone one who breaks an unwhipped vote.