politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly there’s the prospect of a vaccine, perhaps even by th

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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

I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.

According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party

The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.

The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times

By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.

Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.

It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come

Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.

You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit

No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.

Still brexit

You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.

I have never been on the street and nor would I

Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such

Why do you spend so long trying to justify to people why you remain conservative member. To me it just shows that you aren't bright enough to see that the Tory party has become UKIP without Farage...

What do you define UKIP without Farage as though?

If you simply mean pro Brexit then that's a meaningless tautology.

I meant that that the Tories had taken all of UKIPs policies, ditched a lot of their none UKIP-like MPs and that Farage isn't an MP.

But I will also take pro Brexit and utterly useless / incompetent at everything else (which is also UKIP without Farage).

Well which non-Europe, non-Brexit parties have the adopted that you object to or think are not appropriate for the Conservative Party?

Looking at UKIPs policies from their 2010 manifesto they had policies such as:
* An immediate freeze on immigration for permanent settlement for five years
* Abolishing elections to National Assemblies (eg Holyrood etc)
* Introducing PR for Westminster elections
* Increase nuclear power to 50% of UK electricity while limiting wind power
* Requiring taxi drivers to wear uniforms

I don't see any of that drivel being adopted by the Tory Party, do you?

If the best you can respond with is things that even UKIP haven't suggested since 2010 you are struggling for a valid response...

Well 2010 UKIP is the status quo ante for UKIP from before Cameron promised an EU referendum so seemed a reasonable baseline . . . and since UKIP don't exist anymore in any meaningful sense then what other baseline should we be looking at.

Care to name any non-Europe policies that the Tories have adopted "from UKIP" that you find objectionable?

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1283680662814437377

Well that should be a pretty effective way of stopping any useful work going on for the next year or so. Its just as well that the government has no major issues to deal with at present.

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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

I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.

According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party

The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.

The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times

By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.

Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.

It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come

Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.

You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit

No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.

Still brexit

You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.

I have never been on the street and nor would I

Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such

Why do you spend so long trying to justify to people why you remain conservative member. To me it just shows that you aren't bright enough to see that the Tory party has become UKIP without Farage...

What do you define UKIP without Farage as though?

If you simply mean pro Brexit then that's a meaningless tautology.

I meant that that the Tories had taken all of UKIPs policies, ditched a lot of their none UKIP-like MPs and that Farage isn't an MP.

But I will also take pro Brexit and utterly useless / incompetent at everything else (which is also UKIP without Farage).

Well which non-Europe, non-Brexit parties have the adopted that you object to or think are not appropriate for the Conservative Party?

Looking at UKIPs policies from their 2010 manifesto they had policies such as:
* An immediate freeze on immigration for permanent settlement for five years
* Abolishing elections to National Assemblies (eg Holyrood etc)
* Introducing PR for Westminster elections
* Increase nuclear power to 50% of UK electricity while limiting wind power
* Requiring taxi drivers to wear uniforms

I don't see any of that drivel being adopted by the Tory Party, do you?

If the best you can respond with is things that even UKIP haven't suggested since 2010 you are struggling for a valid response...

Well 2010 UKIP is the status quo ante for UKIP from before Cameron promised an EU referendum so seemed a reasonable baseline . . . and since UKIP don't exist anymore in any meaningful sense then what other baseline should we be looking at.

Care to name any non-Europe policies that the Tories have adopted "from UKIP" that you find objectionable?

Grammer schools

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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

I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.

According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party

The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.

The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times

By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.

Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.

It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come

Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.

You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit

No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.

Still brexit

You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.

I have never been on the street and nor would I

Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such

Why do you spend so long trying to justify to people why you remain conservative member. To me it just shows that you aren't bright enough to see that the Tory party has become UKIP without Farage...

What do you define UKIP without Farage as though?

If you simply mean pro Brexit then that's a meaningless tautology.

I meant that that the Tories had taken all of UKIPs policies, ditched a lot of their none UKIP-like MPs and that Farage isn't an MP.

But I will also take pro Brexit and utterly useless / incompetent at everything else (which is also UKIP without Farage).

Well which non-Europe, non-Brexit parties have the adopted that you object to or think are not appropriate for the Conservative Party?

Looking at UKIPs policies from their 2010 manifesto they had policies such as:
* An immediate freeze on immigration for permanent settlement for five years
* Abolishing elections to National Assemblies (eg Holyrood etc)
* Introducing PR for Westminster elections
* Increase nuclear power to 50% of UK electricity while limiting wind power
* Requiring taxi drivers to wear uniforms

I don't see any of that drivel being adopted by the Tory Party, do you?

If the best you can respond with is things that even UKIP haven't suggested since 2010 you are struggling for a valid response...

Well 2010 UKIP is the status quo ante for UKIP from before Cameron promised an EU referendum so seemed a reasonable baseline . . . and since UKIP don't exist anymore in any meaningful sense then what other baseline should we be looking at.

Care to name any non-Europe policies that the Tories have adopted "from UKIP" that you find objectionable?

Grammer schools

Current Tory policy is to keep existing grammars not expand them

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/spreadsheetben/status/1283669312406982656

This is going to be fun! Someone needs to start doing polling on this guy if he's actually making it to the ballot paper.

We also need to understand how serious he actually is, is he going to be a paper candidate doing it for publicity, or is he intending to raise serious amounts of campaign money?

They have , he polled 2% ! He’s missed several new state deadlines for registration including Florida . In terms of Oklahoma he hasn’t fully registered yet , it’s a two stage process . In the poll mentioned Biden increased his lead by 1 point with West on the ballot . It’s only one poll but his manifesto alone is nuts and it looks like just a publicity stunt .

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Thank you for your tip about glasses.

Have bought your recommendations and it is excellent

Very pleased to hear it. That stuff is good. I've ridden a motorbike at over 120mph through a torrential rainstorm with zero fogging issues.

Just 120? Was that a safety precaution?

What stuff as a matter of interest?

The prosaically named Muc-Off Anti Fog. It's meant for the inside of motorcycle visors but works really well on glasses too.

We used to use a soupçon of shaving foam on the inside of our flying helmet visors in the FAA as it was the only vaguely effective substance to which we had access. I only nearly died because of it not working once.

DavidL said:

So just so I am clear, the latest, greatest theory is that this government is doomed by its own incompetence because it tried to fix the chairmanship of a Parliamentary committee and seems to have made a mess of it?

Does anyone seriously think that anyone not obsessed with politics and not thoroughly committed to their team will even notice? Anyone at all?

We have had a link to the fact that 1/3rd of the companies in the country are looking at redundancies post furlough. Its not so much wood from the trees as matchsticks to giant sequoias. We face the worst economic crisis in any of our life times. The success or failure of this government will be measured by how bad that gets. Nothing else matters.

You are, of course, quite right - few will notice, and fewer will care. And yes, there are bigger issues out there.

But it does, nevertheless, add a bit to an ongoing narrative of poor governance, and eventually all these bits contribute to filling in the jigsaw. It is not just the cognoscenti who think Grayling is a useless idiot - his reputation is quite widespread. How on earth can you take a government seriously when it thinks that Grayling is a suitable candidate for a Parliamentary Committee with the word 'intelligence' in it? If I were a Tory, I would be incredulous at the idea that Grayling merits anything other than hiding away given his track record, and would wonder what on earth is going on at No. 10.

Foxy said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1283680662814437377

Well that should be a pretty effective way of stopping any useful work going on for the next year or so. Its just as well that the government has no major issues to deal with at present.

To radicals giving money to consultants is always the problem not the solution isn't it?

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

Mr. Sandpit, I'm inclined to agree, but would add that Hungary can sometimes be entertaining, and certainly has a better chance of being so than Monaco.

MikeSmithson said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283663384655863809

Sharma has ONLY ONE Butcher's Apron conspicuously on display as he is interviewed by the Duchess of Burley on Sky News. I question his patriotism.

He needs 3, so he will reach the "lots" part of the media counting system.

Was looking at that this morning. Prior to the Revolutionary Johnsonians taking over, was it normal to have the Union Flag behind ministers at such times?

The union flag used in this way is a dog whistle to racists.

So it wasn't used previously?

Mr. 86, it's provided some. And some snoozeathons too. Very hard to pass in the dry.

MikeSmithson said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283663384655863809

Sharma has ONLY ONE Butcher's Apron conspicuously on display as he is interviewed by the Duchess of Burley on Sky News. I question his patriotism.

He needs 3, so he will reach the "lots" part of the media counting system.

Was looking at that this morning. Prior to the Revolutionary Johnsonians taking over, was it normal to have the Union Flag behind ministers at such times?

The union flag used in this way is a dog whistle to racists.

Don't be ridiculous.

The national flag appears behind Ministers worldwide in many a democracy without ever being a "dog whistle". Don't be ashamed of your own country.

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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

I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.

According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party

The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.

The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times

By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.

Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.

It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come

Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.

You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit

No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.

Still brexit

You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.

I have never been on the street and nor would I

Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such

Why do you spend so long trying to justify to people why you remain conservative member. To me it just shows that you aren't bright enough to see that the Tory party has become UKIP without Farage...

What do you define UKIP without Farage as though?

If you simply mean pro Brexit then that's a meaningless tautology.

I meant that that the Tories had taken all of UKIPs policies, ditched a lot of their none UKIP-like MPs and that Farage isn't an MP.

But I will also take pro Brexit and utterly useless / incompetent at everything else (which is also UKIP without Farage).

Well which non-Europe, non-Brexit parties have the adopted that you object to or think are not appropriate for the Conservative Party?

Looking at UKIPs policies from their 2010 manifesto they had policies such as:
* An immediate freeze on immigration for permanent settlement for five years
* Abolishing elections to National Assemblies (eg Holyrood etc)
* Introducing PR for Westminster elections
* Increase nuclear power to 50% of UK electricity while limiting wind power
* Requiring taxi drivers to wear uniforms

I don't see any of that drivel being adopted by the Tory Party, do you?

If the best you can respond with is things that even UKIP haven't suggested since 2010 you are struggling for a valid response...

Well 2010 UKIP is the status quo ante for UKIP from before Cameron promised an EU referendum so seemed a reasonable baseline . . . and since UKIP don't exist anymore in any meaningful sense then what other baseline should we be looking at.

Care to name any non-Europe policies that the Tories have adopted "from UKIP" that you find objectionable?

Grammer schools

Grammar schools did not appear in the 2019 manifesto.

You find that objectionable?

I do!

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

So just so I am clear, the latest, greatest theory is that this government is doomed by its own incompetence because it tried to fix the chairmanship of a Parliamentary committee and seems to have made a mess of it?

Does anyone seriously think that anyone not obsessed with politics and not thoroughly committed to their team will even notice? Anyone at all?

We have had a link to the fact that 1/3rd of the companies in the country are looking at redundancies post furlough. Its not so much wood from the trees as matchsticks to giant sequoias. We face the worst economic crisis in any of our life times. The success or failure of this government will be measured by how bad that gets. Nothing else matters.

As well as what happens next.

The government are I think for most reasonable people getting credit for the actions taken such as the furlough scheme and the virus is now under control in this country as opposed to what we're seeing on the news abroad in the likes of the USA, Brazil or now South Africa.

The last decade has seen a bit of a "jobs miracle" in this country, though I don't think its a miracle its that Osborne etc did a good job.

If we see strong economic growth next year and another "jobs miracle" over the next four years then pathetic distractions like the latest failing by Grayling, or trips to Durham Council won't matter. If there's millions languishing unemployed and desperate for change, then such nonsense won't be the reason the election is lost either.

Not quite. At a big picture level, it's true that the ultimate fate of this government depends on economic forces they can't fully control. But there's another factor, where the current Number 10 team are taking a different approach to their predecessors, which looks like it might be a mistake.

Previous governments have treated goodwill like most of us treat money. We have some, it's there to be spent but it's finite. So we're careful with it. Ministers and advisors who get into trouble resign to limit the damage. The government tries not to annoy its backbenchers unnecessarily. Because once the goodwill is gone, it's gone.

This government has decided that it isn't bothered about that. It doesn't mind spending goodwill carelessly- after all, at the end of today, they will still have an excess of goodwill in the bank. They don't care if they spill metaphorical red wine over the nation's metaphorical sofa, because they can't imagine a situation where they don't have the money to buy a new one.

And that second attitude is the kind of thing that works brilliantly right up to the moment it doesn't.

nico67 said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/spreadsheetben/status/1283669312406982656

This is going to be fun! Someone needs to start doing polling on this guy if he's actually making it to the ballot paper.

We also need to understand how serious he actually is, is he going to be a paper candidate doing it for publicity, or is he intending to raise serious amounts of campaign money?

They have , he polled 2% ! He’s missed several new state deadlines for registration including Florida . In terms of Oklahoma he hasn’t fully registered yet , it’s a two stage process . In the poll mentioned Biden increased his lead by 1 point with West on the ballot . It’s only one poll but his manifesto alone is nuts and it looks like just a publicity stunt .

Yes, that was what I was thinking, the guy is a well-known publicity-seeking idiot and might just be doing it for the LOLs.

The danger is that he raises a few hundred million bucks and starts advertising seriously. There was a lot of disenchantment with Biden about his 'you ain't black' comment which suggested to many that the minority vote is being taken for granted. He knows plenty of people with 'money', although how many of his rapper friends are actually good for a large cheque is open to interpretation - many of them don't have a tiny fraction of the money they give the impression of having.

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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

I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.

In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.

According to the BBC he lied to the Chief Whip. A parliamentary party only works as a collaboration. If someone doesn’t play by the rules they can’t be in the party

The chief whip had no business being involved in the election of the committee chair in the first place.
The government gets to appoint the committee members from its own party; its gets to vet and approve all nominated opposition members. Once that is done, it is supposed to be entirely hands off.

As Grieve noted last night, the committee issues all its reports unanimously; it has to operate by consensus, There is no room for party politics in its operation.

The government is a shambles and how it leads in the polls I do not know

And I still remain a loyal member but do despair at times

By the end of this parliament, the Tories might be ready for a long spell in opposition qagain. Or pull off another 1992, and delay the process for five more years.

Or a coalition. Or get elected twice more and delay the process for ten years. Or a hung parliament with no govt able to be formed and a second election straight away. Or.......the possibilities are endless, none are individually predictable or particularly likely.

It is likely it will be political chaos for years to come

Boris/Cummings have consistently been the source of chaos these past four years.

You mean they won brexit and you do not like brexit

No, I mean they undermined May by repeatedly opposing BrexitM seeded chaos in the commons and then got into office and unlawfully closed parliament, lied to the Queen and then got an elected on a promise to deliver an oven ready Brexit, which has since proven to be yet another lie.

Still brexit

You use Brexit as a device to close your eyes and switch off your brain. If Corbyn has done half the things this government has done you would be on the street. Brexit is more important to you than it is to me, the figleaf that justifies your support for this shambles.

I have never been on the street and nor would I

Brexit is important to millions and as far as support for HMG I am a conservative member and remain as such

Why do you spend so long trying to justify to people why you remain conservative member. To me it just shows that you aren't bright enough to see that the Tory party has become UKIP without Farage...

What do you define UKIP without Farage as though?

If you simply mean pro Brexit then that's a meaningless tautology.

I meant that that the Tories had taken all of UKIPs policies, ditched a lot of their none UKIP-like MPs and that Farage isn't an MP.

But I will also take pro Brexit and utterly useless / incompetent at everything else (which is also UKIP without Farage).

60% of 2015 UKIP voters voted Tory in 2017 and by 2019 a further 19% of 2017 Tory Remain voters voted LD and 23% of 2017 Labour Leave voters voted Tory.

The Boris vote is very different to the Cameron vote in many ways

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 86, it's provided some. And some snoozeathons too. Very hard to pass in the dry.

Before they lengthened the straight and before DRS:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

No its not.

Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.

Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830.
And the consequences.

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

So just so I am clear, the latest, greatest theory is that this government is doomed by its own incompetence because it tried to fix the chairmanship of a Parliamentary committee and seems to have made a mess of it?

Does anyone seriously think that anyone not obsessed with politics and not thoroughly committed to their team will even notice? Anyone at all?

We have had a link to the fact that 1/3rd of the companies in the country are looking at redundancies post furlough. Its not so much wood from the trees as matchsticks to giant sequoias. We face the worst economic crisis in any of our life times. The success or failure of this government will be measured by how bad that gets. Nothing else matters.

As well as what happens next.

The government are I think for most reasonable people getting credit for the actions taken such as the furlough scheme and the virus is now under control in this country as opposed to what we're seeing on the news abroad in the likes of the USA, Brazil or now South Africa.

The last decade has seen a bit of a "jobs miracle" in this country, though I don't think its a miracle its that Osborne etc did a good job.

If we see strong economic growth next year and another "jobs miracle" over the next four years then pathetic distractions like the latest failing by Grayling, or trips to Durham Council won't matter. If there's millions languishing unemployed and desperate for change, then such nonsense won't be the reason the election is lost either.

Not quite. At a big picture level, it's true that the ultimate fate of this government depends on economic forces they can't fully control. But there's another factor, where the current Number 10 team are taking a different approach to their predecessors, which looks like it might be a mistake.

Previous governments have treated goodwill like most of us treat money. We have some, it's there to be spent but it's finite. So we're careful with it. Ministers and advisors who get into trouble resign to limit the damage. The government tries not to annoy its backbenchers unnecessarily. Because once the goodwill is gone, it's gone.

This government has decided that it isn't bothered about that. It doesn't mind spending goodwill carelessly- after all, at the end of today, they will still have an excess of goodwill in the bank. They don't care if they spill metaphorical red wine over the nation's metaphorical sofa, because they can't imagine a situation where they don't have the money to buy a new one.

And that second attitude is the kind of thing that works brilliantly right up to the moment it doesn't.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

While the government can't fully control the economic forces they can certainly influence them. They need to what they think is the right thing to do, they need to do a good job.

In order to do what they think is right then that entails spending that goodwill as you spoke about.

Blair was terrible for not spending goodwill but then not getting anything done. He wrote afterwards that he wishes in hindsight he'd been more ambitious. This government may be making their own mistakes, but they're not repeating his mistakes at least.

PS many of the same things being said about Johnson's government now were said about Cameron's in his early days too.

https://twitter.com/RaynerSkyNews/status/1283686688217235456

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1283686755565174786

What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1283686558533640192

Not really. If Johnson wasn't nominally PM he'd have absolutely no reason to be there. It's not like PM Cummings would employ Johnson as his advisor.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

No its not.

Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.

Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.

Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

So just so I am clear, the latest, greatest theory is that this government is doomed by its own incompetence because it tried to fix the chairmanship of a Parliamentary committee and seems to have made a mess of it?

Does anyone seriously think that anyone not obsessed with politics and not thoroughly committed to their team will even notice? Anyone at all?

We have had a link to the fact that 1/3rd of the companies in the country are looking at redundancies post furlough. Its not so much wood from the trees as matchsticks to giant sequoias. We face the worst economic crisis in any of our life times. The success or failure of this government will be measured by how bad that gets. Nothing else matters.

As well as what happens next.

The government are I think for most reasonable people getting credit for the actions taken such as the furlough scheme and the virus is now under control in this country as opposed to what we're seeing on the news abroad in the likes of the USA, Brazil or now South Africa.

The last decade has seen a bit of a "jobs miracle" in this country, though I don't think its a miracle its that Osborne etc did a good job.

If we see strong economic growth next year and another "jobs miracle" over the next four years then pathetic distractions like the latest failing by Grayling, or trips to Durham Council won't matter. If there's millions languishing unemployed and desperate for change, then such nonsense won't be the reason the election is lost either.

sane

I am mildly surprised that Johnson isn't doing a government owned and operated Albion Technology & Allied Trade Enterprise to replace the 5G gubbins we can't now get off WaWay after Trump cockblocked us. Headquarters: Redcar, R&D facility: Blackpool

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

*sigh*
1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it.
2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.

You are the angry England party.

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1283686755565174786

What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.

If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.

I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

No its not.

Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.

Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.

Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled

Wrong.

If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.

If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.

kjh said:

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1283686755565174786

What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.

If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.

I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?

Considering the alternative was Grayling it wouldn't surprise me if secretly the answer is yes.

Why the government chose failing Grayling to put forwards I've got no idea. A vote it deserved to lose and I'll lose no sleep over failing Grayling not being in charge of that committee.

kjh said:

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1283686755565174786

What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.

If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.

I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?

Privately or publically? Im guessing privately all bar Grayling!

Dura_Ace said:

I am mildly surprised that Johnson isn't doing a government owned and operated Albion Technology & Allied Trade Enterprise to replace the 5G gubbins we can't now get off WaWay after Trump cockblocked us. Headquarters: Redcar, R&D facility: Blackpool

It would once have been R&D in Martlesham, but unfortunately it was cheaper to buy in tat from elsewhere.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Ha ha so that is Cummings's grand plan for civil service reform? Throw some money at McKinsey? We left the EU so that the master 4D chess player could unleash his genius and remake the British state, and this is his plan?

Maybe it's the civil service's grand plan to appear to be doing what Cummings wants while actually changing nothing of importance :-)

I do hope Mike’s “Grammer Schools” comment was deliberate...

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

No its not.

Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.

Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830.
And the consequences.

The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

CD13 said:

The only problem for the Democrats is the trap they fell into last time. They hate Trump so much they become hysterical. Yes, he's a moron, but they have become children. I still watch CNN but it's become 'the bitch continually at Trump for being alive' channel.

They've become cartoon characters themselves. Joe may win, but it wil be narrower than it shoud be. In the end, that was Corbyn's problem. He couldn't shake off the juvenile hatred that permeated his campaign.

I rather agree about the danger (though I didn't see Corbyn's campaign as hate-filled) - I'm bored with the Guardian's habit of highlighting every bit of bad news for the Government even if there is better news on the same day. I don't want my newspaper to pander to me - just tell me what's happening, please. And if that's how I feel, presumably floating voters feel it more.

Mind you, the other papers are just as bad or worse in their own way. Despite everything I think the BBC makes more of an effort to be balanced.

Having spent a large part of my career as a journalist I can tell you that bad news is always from a news perspective better news than good news

Bad news appears at the beginning of the broadcast, good news (bar royal weddings, births and Covid vaccinations) at best ends up as a short "And finally" at the end

If I was in charge of the BBC, Id have a minimum 30% good news per week on news programmes. Good news in my quota includes positive responses to bad news crises, such as volunteers helping out after an earthquake etc.

The country would be a lot happier, and actually have a better informed perspective on life, under this policy than current news.

One of the reasons people become more cynical and right wing as they get older is we are fed far more bad news about society than a fair balance would suggest. People are generally well intentioned, even those we dislike.

This is true. If you watch the news and know nothing else you would get no idea of how wealthy or happy most people are most of the time; though these last few months are an interesting exception. Just as you would not know that most of Syria is not at war, many people in Africa live interesting and fruitful lives, most religious people are sane moderates and so on.

Overall you would get a very unhappy and skewed picture of the world.

Philip_Thompson said:

kjh said:

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1283686755565174786

What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.

If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.

I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?

Considering the alternative was Grayling it wouldn't surprise me if secretly the answer is yes.

Why the government chose failing Grayling to put forwards I've got no idea. A vote it deserved to lose and I'll lose no sleep over failing Grayling not being in charge of that committee.

Its fairly obvious why they put him forward. He will do as he is told (unless he f***s it up). He will make the govt look competent by comparison.

TOPPING said:

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

CD13 said:

The only problem for the Democrats is the trap they fell into last time. They hate Trump so much they become hysterical. Yes, he's a moron, but they have become children. I still watch CNN but it's become 'the bitch continually at Trump for being alive' channel.

They've become cartoon characters themselves. Joe may win, but it wil be narrower than it shoud be. In the end, that was Corbyn's problem. He couldn't shake off the juvenile hatred that permeated his campaign.

I rather agree about the danger (though I didn't see Corbyn's campaign as hate-filled) - I'm bored with the Guardian's habit of highlighting every bit of bad news for the Government even if there is better news on the same day. I don't want my newspaper to pander to me - just tell me what's happening, please. And if that's how I feel, presumably floating voters feel it more.

Mind you, the other papers are just as bad or worse in their own way. Despite everything I think the BBC makes more of an effort to be balanced.

Having spent a large part of my career as a journalist I can tell you that bad news is always from a news perspective better news than good news

Everyone prefers bad restaurant reviews to good ones.

Not if you've got a booking.

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kjh said:

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1283686755565174786

What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.

If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.

I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?

Considering the alternative was Grayling it wouldn't surprise me if secretly the answer is yes.

Why the government chose failing Grayling to put forwards I've got no idea. A vote it deserved to lose and I'll lose no sleep over failing Grayling not being in charge of that committee.

Its fairly obvious why they put him forward. He will do as he is told (unless he f***s it up). He will make the govt look competent by comparison.

The problem is the odds of that unless are pretty close to 100%

Putting Grayling in charge of anything important and expecting it to succeed is like putting Rebecca Long Bailey and Chris Williamson in charge of an antisemitism investigation.

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kjh said:

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1283686755565174786

What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.

If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.

I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?

Considering the alternative was Grayling it wouldn't surprise me if secretly the answer is yes.

Why the government chose failing Grayling to put forwards I've got no idea. A vote it deserved to lose and I'll lose no sleep over failing Grayling not being in charge of that committee.

Its fairly obvious why they put him forward. He will do as he is told (unless he f***s it up). He will make the govt look competent by comparison.

The problem is the odds of that unless are pretty close to 100%

Putting Grayling in charge of anything important and expecting it to succeed is like putting Rebecca Long Bailey and Chris Williamson in charge of an antisemitism investigation.

The govt dont want that committee to be important. They believe that they will make the right decisions so scrutiny is a hindrance not an asset.

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

*sigh*
1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it.
2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.

You are the angry England party.

1. No, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of Scottish independence and the end of the Union, unlike Spain in Catalonia we at least allowed one indyref which was supposed to be 'once in a generation.'
2. Northern Irish voters still back the Union 52% to 29%
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI

We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

CD13 said:

The only problem for the Democrats is the trap they fell into last time. They hate Trump so much they become hysterical. Yes, he's a moron, but they have become children. I still watch CNN but it's become 'the bitch continually at Trump for being alive' channel.

They've become cartoon characters themselves. Joe may win, but it wil be narrower than it shoud be. In the end, that was Corbyn's problem. He couldn't shake off the juvenile hatred that permeated his campaign.

I rather agree about the danger (though I didn't see Corbyn's campaign as hate-filled) - I'm bored with the Guardian's habit of highlighting every bit of bad news for the Government even if there is better news on the same day. I don't want my newspaper to pander to me - just tell me what's happening, please. And if that's how I feel, presumably floating voters feel it more.

Mind you, the other papers are just as bad or worse in their own way. Despite everything I think the BBC makes more of an effort to be balanced.

Having spent a large part of my career as a journalist I can tell you that bad news is always from a news perspective better news than good news

Everyone prefers bad restaurant reviews to good ones.

Not if you've got a booking.

A bad (but well written) review is a decent deal when the review puts you off going there.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

No its not.

Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.

Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830.
And the consequences.

The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have

But you want to ignore what the Scottish MPs and Scottish Parliament elected by Scottish voters have to say and respond with "f**k off we don't care about you".

And you call that "Unionist"

We don't care what Nationalists think no, the majority of 2014 No voting Scottish Unionists who won that referendum do not want indyref2 as all polls show

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

CD13 said:

The only problem for the Democrats is the trap they fell into last time. They hate Trump so much they become hysterical. Yes, he's a moron, but they have become children. I still watch CNN but it's become 'the bitch continually at Trump for being alive' channel.

They've become cartoon characters themselves. Joe may win, but it wil be narrower than it shoud be. In the end, that was Corbyn's problem. He couldn't shake off the juvenile hatred that permeated his campaign.

I rather agree about the danger (though I didn't see Corbyn's campaign as hate-filled) - I'm bored with the Guardian's habit of highlighting every bit of bad news for the Government even if there is better news on the same day. I don't want my newspaper to pander to me - just tell me what's happening, please. And if that's how I feel, presumably floating voters feel it more.

Mind you, the other papers are just as bad or worse in their own way. Despite everything I think the BBC makes more of an effort to be balanced.

Having spent a large part of my career as a journalist I can tell you that bad news is always from a news perspective better news than good news

Everyone prefers bad restaurant reviews to good ones.

Not if you've got a booking.

LOL.

I thought the trendy thing pre-lockdown was no bookings and queue around the block?

eek said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

*sigh*
1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it.
2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.

You are the angry England party.

1. No, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of Scottish independence and the end of the Union, unlike Spain in Catalonia we at least allowed one indyref which was supposed to be 'once in a generation.'
2. Northern Irish voters still back the Union 52% to 29%
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI

We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.

On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

No its not.

Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.

Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.

Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled

Wrong.

If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.

If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.

Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.

Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2

Unionists won the argument by treating the Scottish electorate with respect.

Not by telling them to f**k off and ignoring their votes.

You are no Unionist.

You show no respect to the 55% who voted No to independence in what even Salmond said was a 'once in a generation' referendum as you want to break up the Union

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ClippP said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:

I know it's the Daily Mail but it's a link everyone can read

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8527855/One-three-firms-preparing-lay-staff-furlough-ends-October.html

A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.

And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...

According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.

The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.

And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.

The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.

I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?

I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.

It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.

That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.

Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist

No its not.

Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.

Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.

Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled

Wrong.

If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.

If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.

Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.

Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2

What do you think of this Thatcher quote:

'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'

I'm just stirring!

Thatcher is not PM and she made the comment even before Holyrood was created let alone the 2014 referendum

MarqueeMark said:

At least try to hide your disappointment, Beeb:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52660591

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

CD13 said:

The only problem for the Democrats is the trap they fell into last time. They hate Trump so much they become hysterical. Yes, he's a moron, but they have become children. I still watch CNN but it's become 'the bitch continually at Trump for being alive' channel.

They've become cartoon characters themselves. Joe may win, but it wil be narrower than it shoud be. In the end, that was Corbyn's problem. He couldn't shake off the juvenile hatred that permeated his campaign.

I rather agree about the danger (though I didn't see Corbyn's campaign as hate-filled) - I'm bored with the Guardian's habit of highlighting every bit of bad news for the Government even if there is better news on the same day. I don't want my newspaper to pander to me - just tell me what's happening, please. And if that's how I feel, presumably floating voters feel it more.

Mind you, the other papers are just as bad or worse in their own way. Despite everything I think the BBC makes more of an effort to be balanced.

Having spent a large part of my career as a journalist I can tell you that bad news is always from a news perspective better news than good news

Bad news appears at the beginning of the broadcast, good news (bar royal weddings, births and Covid vaccinations) at best ends up as a short "And finally" at the end

If I was in charge of the BBC, Id have a minimum 30% good news per week on news programmes. Good news in my quota includes positive responses to bad news crises, such as volunteers helping out after an earthquake etc.

The country would be a lot happier, and actually have a better informed perspective on life, under this policy than current news.

One of the reasons people become more cynical and right wing as they get older is we are fed far more bad news about society than a fair balance would suggest. People are generally well intentioned, even those we dislike.

What we need is a bit more patriotism from the Beeb. Something like this please:

https://youtu.be/eyX5VWzeKPM

kjh said:

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1283686755565174786

What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.

If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.

I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?

Being the only one with prior experience of the committee does seem useful for the chair.

MattW said:

Mexicanpete said:

MattW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Saw the photo then was surprised to see the poster was Rochdale and not isam! I'm guessing it's percolated more than I'd expected.

What has SKS done? ... having to pay out libel damages for attacking its own employees pointing to its racism.

I missed this libel payments to employees one. Do you have a link?

I'm aware of Roy McCluskey seemingly giving about half a million of Union Members' money to the bloke who runs Skwawkbox for legal fees wrt Anna Turley, but not the other.

Roy? Does Len have an evil twin?

Touche.

Big hospital appointment this afternoon. Distracted.

The even better one which I think I have managed to avoid so far on PB is to turn Margaret Hodge into Patricia Hodge by reflex.

I might even compile a note to my Red Wall Tory MP suggesting ways of dealing with Main Residence CGT Relief whilst the elixir is being dripped in.

Roy Lilly getting a new job then?