John Bercow – denied a peerage by BoJo on his retirement – now joins Labour – politicalbetting.com

noneoftheabove said:

rottenborough said:

I got on Galloway on BF for B& S at 110 two days ago.

He is now 4.1.

Happy to lay 5.1 if you would like to top up!!

Lowest matched price is 50 so would query that he ever was 4.1, that was merely a sign of no market at the time.

Indeed. 33/1 on the Sportsbook.

alex_ said:

Stereodog said:

You won't hear someone who has worked in Parliament say this very often but I miss Bercow as Speaker. His willingness to ignore convention made Parliament (for good or ill) powerful during Brexit in a way that stands in stark contrast to how supine it's been over COVID.

Hoyle has his tantrums against the government but ultimately he's not willing to break any rules that might really piss them off. His fatal flaw is that he wants to be liked by his colleagues. He's a bit Michael Martin like in my opinion, although perhaps more intelligent.

Bercow really hated clerks because they told him that he couldn't do things because of precedent (that is largely their job) and his behaviour could be inexcusable. On the other hand he was wonderful with the other staff such as the security guards, guides, caterers. Always really helpful for things like organising school visits and he opened up Speaker's House to any staff grade for monthly lectures by other politicians.

Parliament was "powerful" during Brexit because the Government had no majority. And no majority for no course of action. And ultimately what did it achieve with this "power"? An outcome far worse than Government opponents would have compromised for with hindsight.

Parliament could easily be powerful over Covid, even with the large Government majority. That it's not is because the key to limiting Government power is to oppose it on lockdown - because that is where any rebellion from within its own ranks is going to come from. But that won't happen whilst the main opposition is unwilling to exploit this to get its aims. Even if just threatening to vote with rebels to give the Govt the dilemma between following the agenda of the rebels - or following the opposition agenda of increasing financial support for workers and businesses.

Starmer really is a useless sack. Completely failed when it came to Brexit. Has now allied himself with perhaps the only person more identified by the public with undemocratically blocking Brexit than he is himself.

Meanwhile he lets the incompetence and needlessly authoritarian tendencies of the government go unpunished, because he thinks a few “forensic” questions before voting Aye is all that his job demands of him.

We’ve just had the revelation that the government maintained historic authoritarian powers on the back of bad data. But not only that, it was apparently done with the deliberate connivance of the Health Secretary against his own PM and Chancellor!

Where is the emergency motion to reopen last week’s vote? The throwing down of the gauntlet to the Tory rebels to vote down their own PM, on what would surely be a confidence matter?

He is the most disappointing and useless British political figure of this century, a very high bar to clear which he manages with ease. Next please.

alex_ said:

Charles said:

The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.

At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.

Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.

And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community

Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible

Why don't the other parents vote them off again then?

Because it is bollox tittle tattle by some hooray Henry's upset that Bercow makes them look like the thickos they are.

alex_ said:

OldKingCole said:

alex_ said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Happy pointless card day all you dads out there

I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.

But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.

For some reason, the basis for which escapes me, most of my presents these days...... Birthday, Christmas, Fathers Day....... seem to involve alcoholic drinks.

Maybe you're no fun at parties?

People who a bottle of something alcoholic to a party are, I find, generally welcomed.

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.

Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.

That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.

RochdalePioneers said:

alex_ said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Happy pointless card day all you dads out there

I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.

But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.

I have 3 kids and I love a bottle of single malt. But Fathers Day has never interested me. My kids love me. They don't need to be guilt tripped into having one random day where the card industry makes a bundle of profit for something they made up.

Skip the card but keep the Scotch I say.

Anyone know if this is supposed to be ironic? Seriously.

Anthony Seldon. Will Boris Johnson be one of the great Prime Ministers

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/will-boris-johnson-be-one-of-the-great-pri

So isn't Fathers' Day the day for sending a card to your priest?

felix said:

OldKingCole said:

felix said:

Charles said:

The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.

At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.

Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.

And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community

Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible

I'd have to say he'd come very high on the list of 'defections' any sensible political party would wish to avoid. I struggle to see an obvious voting cohort that would be following him from blue to red. Other reasons why blues might move of course but in Bercow's wake? No.

As an aside it seems from reports in the press and elsewhere that there may be something of a local difficulty for Labour with the Muslim vote in B & S. Apparently the fact that his wife is half Jewish is not helping their cause. If so what an extraordinary indictment of the party for its courting of factionalism for too many years now.

The Labour candidate in B&S is female.

I was referring to Starmer's wife which was cited in the reports. Re-reading I can see the confusion. I've no knowledge of the Labour candidate beyond her being Jo Cox's sister. The reports i read were talking about the anti-Starmer rumblings. Hilarious that even in the wake of the C & A defeat it is the Labour leader under pressure.

Why hilarious? Labour were down with the joke candidates - in a seat they came second in three and a half years ago.

Happy Birthday Pulpstar and happy Father's Day to all the dads here.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

ThomasNashe said:

Dura_Ace said:

Cocky_cockney said:

And this is another example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/19/exclusive-matt-hancock-kept-boris-johnson-dark-covid-vaccines/

I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.

Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.

Dura_Ace said:

Cocky_cockney said:

And this is another example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/19/exclusive-matt-hancock-kept-boris-johnson-dark-covid-vaccines/

I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.

Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.

Yes, that was the first thing that occurred to me too.

That’s a worrying thought, because if Hancock’s for the chop, that means Williamson and Jenrick might just survive.

Of those 3 Hancock is indeed the stand out star.

The Star headline about Cumming’s revelations, “useless **** says useless **** called useless **** useless”, is unimprovable.

kle4 said:

OldKingCole said:

alex_ said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Happy pointless card day all you dads out there

I was just wondering if there's any sort of accepted standard of gift for Father's Day? Or is it just a card. Mother's Day is obviously flowers (at a minimum), and probably give her a break by cooking lunch or going out for a meal.

But Father's Day? Bottle of Scotch? Just because.

For some reason, the basis for which escapes me, most of my presents these days...... Birthday, Christmas, Fathers Day....... seem to involve alcoholic drinks.

People tend to have a limited range of interests and the older they get the higher the chance they've already got the things they want, either purchased themselves or gifted in previous years. So you look for gifts that can be repeated or consumed.

Came across this rhyme somewhere as an aid for gift-giving: "Something to eat, something to read, something they want, something they need."

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.

Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.

That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.

The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote.
Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.

No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.

Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.

Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.

But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TimS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

He joined Labour many years ago.

As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).

He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.

True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.

Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.

I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.

But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.

Get a muzzle.

Typical leftie - first resort is to restrict someone’s freedom in case they do something

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

ThomasNashe said:

Dura_Ace said:

Cocky_cockney said:

And this is another example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/19/exclusive-matt-hancock-kept-boris-johnson-dark-covid-vaccines/

I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.

Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.

Dura_Ace said:

Cocky_cockney said:

And this is another example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/19/exclusive-matt-hancock-kept-boris-johnson-dark-covid-vaccines/

I'm afraid that Johnson is hopeless on detail. He bluffs, blusters and blagues but has no grasp of facts, no attention to detail and no capacity to apply himself.

Fucking Hopeless is definitely on the receiving end of a blue-on-blue shock and awe briefing campaign at the moment.

Yes, that was the first thing that occurred to me too.

That’s a worrying thought, because if Hancock’s for the chop, that means Williamson and Jenrick might just survive.

Of those 3 Hancock is indeed the stand out star.

Hancock has clearly had successes, after the initial PPE disasters - and arguably a lot of the discontent/criticism of him now is actually because he is being too effective in asserting his will over the Government from people who are extremely unhappy over the ongoing restrictions and how they are being justified. Which, whatever else, i wouldn't really say met the definition of "hopeless".

If a PM can't find a way to assert himself over a "hopeless" Cabinet member, then the term is being assigned to the wrong individual.

Williamson on the other hand...

alex_ said:

rottenborough said:

Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
2m
INDEPENDENT DIGITAL: Record demand at A&E puts patient lives ‘at risk’ #TomorrowsPapersToday

What are all these record A&E presentations presenting with? Because by definition it can't be Covid.

Some GPs still playing hard to get?

alex_ said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.

Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.

That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.

The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote.
Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.

Possibly - but convention is an enormous part of the UK constitution. If conventions are not broadly stuck to and respected then the whole thing falls apart very rapidly. Now that may be a (political) motivation for a supporter of a written constitution, but it is doubtful that that is the role of the Speaker. Whilst is the job of the Speaker to ensure that Parliament can hold the Government to account, I don't think it follows that "anything goes".

And of course with Bercow, whilst he made strong play of the idea that he was "asserting the rights of Parliament/backbenchers over an overmighty executive", and this was a pretty reasonable argument in the earlier years of his being in post, by the end it just looked as if he was doing so out of a level of strong partisanship on the major issue(s) of the day.

On International Aid I don't know how much direct say the Commons normally has on how the government spends money. I know that the estimates are laid before Parliament, but I think the votes are normally on the taxation required to fund spending, rather than on what the spending is on itself.

International Aid is a bit different, because the commitment to 0.7% was passed into law, and so there would need to be a vote to change that law. So I would think that there's no particular hurry here for a vote by crow-barring an amendment onto another Bill. The law is still the law for 0.7%, and so then it is a matter for the courts to enforce on the Executive. The Commons doesn't need to do anything - unless it looks likely that the Executive will ignore a court ruling that they are in breach of the law.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.

Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.

That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.

The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote.
Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.

No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.

Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.

Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.

But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.

‘The rules’ would also say that the government is breaking the law in reducing aid without a parliamentary vote.

Frank Luntz on wokeism:

"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "

in Telegraph

moonshine said:

alex_ said:

Stereodog said:

You won't hear someone who has worked in Parliament say this very often but I miss Bercow as Speaker. His willingness to ignore convention made Parliament (for good or ill) powerful during Brexit in a way that stands in stark contrast to how supine it's been over COVID.

Hoyle has his tantrums against the government but ultimately he's not willing to break any rules that might really piss them off. His fatal flaw is that he wants to be liked by his colleagues. He's a bit Michael Martin like in my opinion, although perhaps more intelligent.

Bercow really hated clerks because they told him that he couldn't do things because of precedent (that is largely their job) and his behaviour could be inexcusable. On the other hand he was wonderful with the other staff such as the security guards, guides, caterers. Always really helpful for things like organising school visits and he opened up Speaker's House to any staff grade for monthly lectures by other politicians.

Parliament was "powerful" during Brexit because the Government had no majority. And no majority for no course of action. And ultimately what did it achieve with this "power"? An outcome far worse than Government opponents would have compromised for with hindsight.

Parliament could easily be powerful over Covid, even with the large Government majority. That it's not is because the key to limiting Government power is to oppose it on lockdown - because that is where any rebellion from within its own ranks is going to come from. But that won't happen whilst the main opposition is unwilling to exploit this to get its aims. Even if just threatening to vote with rebels to give the Govt the dilemma between following the agenda of the rebels - or following the opposition agenda of increasing financial support for workers and businesses.

Starmer really is a useless sack. Completely failed when it came to Brexit. Has now allied himself with perhaps the only person more identified by the public with undemocratically blocking Brexit than he is himself.

Meanwhile he lets the incompetence and needlessly authoritarian tendencies of the government go unpunished, because he thinks a few “forensic” questions before voting Aye is all that his job demands of him.

We’ve just had the revelation that the government maintained historic authoritarian powers on the back of bad data. But not only that, it was apparently done with the deliberate connivance of the Health Secretary against his own PM and Chancellor!

Where is the emergency motion to reopen last week’s vote? The throwing down of the gauntlet to the Tory rebels to vote down their own PM, on what would surely be a confidence matter?

He is the most disappointing and useless British political figure of this century, a very high bar to clear which he manages with ease. Next please.

He's the Iain Duncan-Smith of the Labour Party, but when the Tories want to get rid of an under performing leader they just have to write to the 1922 committee who will then organise an election.

The committee chairman will keep the names of the rebels confidential so that they can't lose anything if they fail to garner enough support.

Labour MPs who want to replace their leader have to mount a challenge themselves, publicly soliciting support from other rebels and they will all face losing their career if they fail to pull it off.

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Frank Luntz on wokeism:

"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "

in Telegraph

So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ?
Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.

Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html
H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…

Deleted

Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.

Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.

That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.

The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote.
Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.

No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.

Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.

Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.

But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.

Johnson is breaching the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and is protected in doing so by the conventions that Hoyle is applying. Should Hoyle enforce the principle at the expense of the conventions? For the sake of argument let's say Bercow would have done so. Is Bercow the better Speaker? I would argue, Yes, but there is a cost to pay in the conventions. It's not a free pass.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hoyle os a much better speaker...see how he handled the international aid amendment and also the government not making announcements first in parliament...he quietly but firmly talked to.those involved and found a way forward. No showboating.

Dreamer , Boris just ignores him , he is a wimp and a useless lickspittle that the Tories just ignore.

That's because of their majority not because of the Speaker.

The government, of course, very likely did not have a majority on international aid. They would have been hard put to ignore him had he broken convention and allowed the rebels a vote.
Approve of that decision or not, it does at least support malc’s unflattering assessment.

No it doesn't because following the rules properly is not being a lickspittle, and departing from the rules simply to assist opposing the government is improper behaviour. It's not his job to engineer possible government defeats by ignoring rules.

Not being a lickspittle would be about the marginal calls, the 50/50 calls, pushing back when the government seeks to bypass parliament, in being flexible when there is some discretion, being firm with the ministers at the dispatch box. Indeed, by publicly urging the House get a say properly on international aid he enforced the rules but showed he wasn't a lickspittle by making clear his view, which must carry the undertone that he will be generous where he can of amendments that are in scope.

Is Hoyle a good Speaker? I dont know. I believe he made a rule that clerk advice should be made available if the speaker deviates from it which shows openness and transparency are important to him - that if and when he departs from convention he will need to properly justify himself.

But 'standing up for parliament' cannot simply mean ignoring procedures if it is convenient. Its more subtle than that, the Brexit parliament was an unusual situation.

‘The rules’ would also say that the government is breaking the law in reducing aid without a parliamentary vote.

Sounds like a matter for the courts - two wrongs don't make a right, and if something is out of scope it is out of scope, discretion of presiding officer's is not supposed to be infinite.

It was a stupid law anyway - multi-year spending shouldn't be mandated in this way. Why is aid singled out for protection? It's because everybody knows the pledge is disliked and widely hated.

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Frank Luntz on wokeism:

"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "

in Telegraph

So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ?
Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.

Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html
H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…

Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).

Woke needs to be opposed at every turn.

contrarian said:

Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.

Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.

Cicero said:

contrarian said:

Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.

Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.

Pick someone who isn't regarded by a set of Tory voters as incompetent...

squareroot2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Frank Luntz on wokeism:

"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "

in Telegraph

So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ?
Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.

Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html
H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…

Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).

Woke needs to be opposed at every turn.

Opposing at every turn sounds a bit like cancel culture to me....

Whatever happened to treating things on their merits? Sometimes the woke have the better point, sometimes it is the anti-woke, sometimes they are about equally valid. Why does everything have to be so partisan and dogmatic nowadays? It is probably down to Twatter and other social media but we need to get past that.

Cicero said:

contrarian said:

Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.

Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.

He has the problem of being very short. It doesn't look.good on camera. Look at Sadiq Khan. Like it or not, being vertically challenged is an issue. Who was the last PM who was under 5ft 6?

CarlottaVance said:

IN April 2019, Prime Minister Theresa May invited Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to take part in cross-party talks in an attempt to agree a unified approach to Brexit. Starmer, who in his role as Shadow Brexit Secretary had engaged the Tory Government in a long series of skirmishes since the vote to leave Europe, led the Labour delegation.

The meetings opened with some optimism. The Government team quickly discerned, however, that some of those in the Labour camp were more willing to compromise than others. While those in Corbyn’s close team ‘were sending out signals that they wanted a deal’, Starmer was insistent that an agreement had to include a second referendum......

According to May’s former director of communications Sir Robbie Gibb, he and his opposite number in the Labour delegation, Seumas Milne, would work together on how to communicate the progress of talks to journalists......

But, he says, ‘there were briefings to the BBC’s Today programme saying that the cross-party talks are going nowhere. ‘I’d get a call from the BBC saying, “I believe the talks are on the verge of collapse.”.....

‘”Well, who have you spoken to?”, I’d say. “Can’t say. It’s official sources.” It was completely disorientating. So the question is, who spoke to the journalists?’...

Sir David Lidington, a Tory who supported Remain who was closely involved in trying to pass the May deal that would have kept Britain more closely aligned with the EU than the one ultimately concluded by Johnson, reflects that whatever the mix of motives, ‘Starmer is one of the authors of a very hard Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind about that’.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2021/06/starmers-brexit-calamity-the-irony-is-exquisite/

There’s a video is Starmer around that tune saying that it’s an important point of principle that Labour demand a second referendum and would campaign for Remain if they get it. He is the ultimate Brexit blocker, & 65% of constituencies voted Leave. Leavers won’t vote for him. They should get rid of him now if they want any chance of winning the next GE in my opinion.

Black_Rook said:

felix said:

OldKingCole said:

felix said:

Charles said:

The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.

At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.

Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.

And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community

Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible

I'd have to say he'd come very high on the list of 'defections' any sensible political party would wish to avoid. I struggle to see an obvious voting cohort that would be following him from blue to red. Other reasons why blues might move of course but in Bercow's wake? No.

As an aside it seems from reports in the press and elsewhere that there may be something of a local difficulty for Labour with the Muslim vote in B & S. Apparently the fact that his wife is half Jewish is not helping their cause. If so what an extraordinary indictment of the party for its courting of factionalism for too many years now.

The Labour candidate in B&S is female.

I was referring to Starmer's wife which was cited in the reports. Re-reading I can see the confusion. I've no knowledge of the Labour candidate beyond her being Jo Cox's sister. The reports i read were talking about the anti-Starmer rumblings. Hilarious that even in the wake of the C & A defeat it is the Labour leader under pressure.

Husband relates to me reports he has just read of situation in B&S. Galloway alleged to be doing unexpectedly well. Three causes: 1. Some local Muslims reminding their mates Starmer has a Jewish wife. 2. Same elements spreading rumours that Labour candidate is Lesbian. 3. Galloway also pursuing the Heavy Woollen vote. Thought is that he will come second to the Tory and has an outside chance of winning. Make of this what you will.

George Galloway standing up for the under-represented anti-Semites and Homophobes. Look in the mirror, George - it ain't pretty.

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

IN April 2019, Prime Minister Theresa May invited Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to take part in cross-party talks in an attempt to agree a unified approach to Brexit. Starmer, who in his role as Shadow Brexit Secretary had engaged the Tory Government in a long series of skirmishes since the vote to leave Europe, led the Labour delegation.

The meetings opened with some optimism. The Government team quickly discerned, however, that some of those in the Labour camp were more willing to compromise than others. While those in Corbyn’s close team ‘were sending out signals that they wanted a deal’, Starmer was insistent that an agreement had to include a second referendum......

According to May’s former director of communications Sir Robbie Gibb, he and his opposite number in the Labour delegation, Seumas Milne, would work together on how to communicate the progress of talks to journalists......

But, he says, ‘there were briefings to the BBC’s Today programme saying that the cross-party talks are going nowhere. ‘I’d get a call from the BBC saying, “I believe the talks are on the verge of collapse.”.....

‘”Well, who have you spoken to?”, I’d say. “Can’t say. It’s official sources.” It was completely disorientating. So the question is, who spoke to the journalists?’...

Sir David Lidington, a Tory who supported Remain who was closely involved in trying to pass the May deal that would have kept Britain more closely aligned with the EU than the one ultimately concluded by Johnson, reflects that whatever the mix of motives, ‘Starmer is one of the authors of a very hard Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind about that’.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2021/06/starmers-brexit-calamity-the-irony-is-exquisite/

There’s a video is Starmer around that tune saying that it’s an important point of principle that Labour demand a second referendum and would campaign for Remain if they get it. He is the ultimate Brexit blocker, & 65% of constituencies voted Leave. Leavers won’t vote for him. They should get rid of him now if they want any chance of winning the next GE in my opinion.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/20/labour-could-back-brexit-bill-if-second-referendum-attached-says-starmer

And:

We need to ask the public whether they are prepared to leave with the best deal that can be negotiated or whether they wouldn’t rather stay in the EU.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/keir-starmer-labour-is-committed-to-a-second-referendum-a4243906.html

squareroot2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Frank Luntz on wokeism:

"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "

in Telegraph

So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ?
Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.

Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html
H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…

Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).

Woke needs to be opposed at every turn.

It does, but you have to careful not to become 'Woke' yourself in the other direction.
All sides should be able to express a reasonable opposing view without being shouted down by opponents.

Board still full of Brexiters angry that they won.
It’s been five years, guys. Time to move on.

squareroot2 said:

Cicero said:

contrarian said:

Reading the press this morning, it looks like the day Sunak challenges Johnson is a matter of when not if.

Sunak has yet to be really tested and while the public schoolboys in the Press and Parliamentary Tory Party may think that swapping an Etonian for a Wykhamist is some kind of radical departure, they may find that in real life the hedge fund manager billionaire-by-marriage would be the prisoner of events as May was, and then the Tories really will be in trouble. If Sunak is the answer then I´d like to know the question.

He has the problem of being very short. It doesn't look.good on camera. Look at Sadiq Khan. Like it or not, being vertically challenged is an issue. Who was the last PM who was under 5ft 6?

Mrs Thatcher?

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Frank Luntz on wokeism:

"He adds: "It changes your history, or it focuses on the bad rather than the good. I think Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Wokeism focuses on the fact that he owned slaves." "

in Telegraph

So anti-wokery is pretending the unsavoury bits of your country’s past didn’t happen ?
Which is genuinely how US history was taught until very recently indeed.

Republicans wish to return to that, making “patriotic education” legally compulsory.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/texas-1836-project-teachers.html
H.B. 2497 mandates only two things. First, it calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory committee “to promote patriotic education” and Texas values. Second, it requires the committee to provide a pamphlet to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which will give an overview of Texas history and explain state policies that “promote liberty and freedom.” The DPS must distribute this pamphlet to everyone who receives a new Texas driver’s license. Another bill, H.B. 3979, which bars teachers from linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States, is now on Abbott’s desk…

Indeed. The "focus" on his slave owning comes at least as much from the anti-woke criticising the woke for mentioning he had slaves, as it does some woke university bod pointing out he had slaves (about 600 over his lifetime, so quite a lot!).

Woke needs to be opposed at every turn.

Opposing at every turn sounds a bit like cancel culture to me....

Whatever happened to treating things on their merits? Sometimes the woke have the better point, sometimes it is the anti-woke, sometimes they are about equally valid. Why does everything have to be so partisan and dogmatic nowadays? It is probably down to Twatter and other social media but we need to get past that.

Yep. Eg. There are some seriously problematic issues around the pro-trans agenda (such as, to pick a few, the extent to it impinges on feminism, women’s perception of vulnerability, sporting competition etc). On the other hand there are areas where there are areas of disadvantage and little understanding that sex and gender aren’t quite so binary as traditional approaches have implied.

But the current debate allows little room for such nuance to the extent that most moderate voices are too scared to get involved because of the hate that can depend if heads get put too far above the parapet. That is not a good place to be.

Hancock fans surprise me.

All the evidence we have is that he is in the main a hollow self-promoter and while I don’t doubt he has worked hard during the pandemic, he’s obviously out of his depth.

Compare with Hunt.

Mind you, before Hunt was the disastrous Lansley and under New Labour, Health seemed to be some kind of temporary resting spot.

You have to go back to Bottomley to find another decent Health Sec?

rural_voter said:

contrarian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Anecdotally, covid hospital stays have got shorter. Let's see if this fits with the data for England.

Spoiler: It does.

It looks like, compared to winter:
- shorter stays currently lead to ~25% fewer covid occupied beds
- this % is slowly increasing

Explanation below (1/n)

https://twitter.com/nicfreeman1209/status/1406506033414033408?s=20

The way Hancock has been thrown to the wolves for the UK not opening up on 21 June is hilarious.

If the UK had applied the same terminology to influenza since 1945, we'd now be in the 75th wave ... or thereabouts ... and roughly the 20-thousandth and fiftieth variant; it mutates more than coronaviruses.

Has anyone asked in the mainstream media if Delta, while more infectious than Gamma, is also less deadly? (going the way of all viruses, as with 1957 and 1968 'pandemic flu' weakening and turning into 'seasonal flu')

Has anyone asked if the UK has thought of treating Delta cases with Ivermectin or other cheap generic drugs as in India?

No, I thought not.

That's the outcome when a government has a well-constructed false narrative to protect, becomes the biggest press advertiser and OFCOM forces broadcasters to support the government line and not allow a balanced debate.

I don’t think you can totally dismiss the fact that the pharmaceutical companies have quite a vested interest in ongoing booster vaccines for virus variants being necessary...

SandyRentool said:

Black_Rook said:

felix said:

OldKingCole said:

felix said:

Charles said:

The most revealing story I heard about Bercow was a few months ago.

At the school his kids are at there are 2 parents represented on the board.

Sally & John Bercow have occupied both of those seats having actively campaigned to win them.

And, I am told, favour their children’s interests over the broader school community

Of course this is all third hand gossip, but it does seem entirely plausible

I'd have to say he'd come very high on the list of 'defections' any sensible political party would wish to avoid. I struggle to see an obvious voting cohort that would be following him from blue to red. Other reasons why blues might move of course but in Bercow's wake? No.

As an aside it seems from reports in the press and elsewhere that there may be something of a local difficulty for Labour with the Muslim vote in B & S. Apparently the fact that his wife is half Jewish is not helping their cause. If so what an extraordinary indictment of the party for its courting of factionalism for too many years now.

The Labour candidate in B&S is female.

I was referring to Starmer's wife which was cited in the reports. Re-reading I can see the confusion. I've no knowledge of the Labour candidate beyond her being Jo Cox's sister. The reports i read were talking about the anti-Starmer rumblings. Hilarious that even in the wake of the C & A defeat it is the Labour leader under pressure.

Husband relates to me reports he has just read of situation in B&S. Galloway alleged to be doing unexpectedly well. Three causes: 1. Some local Muslims reminding their mates Starmer has a Jewish wife. 2. Same elements spreading rumours that Labour candidate is Lesbian. 3. Galloway also pursuing the Heavy Woollen vote. Thought is that he will come second to the Tory and has an outside chance of winning. Make of this what you will.

George Galloway standing up for the under-represented anti-Semites and Homophobes. Look in the mirror, George - it ain't pretty.

One of the less remarked upon tensions in Labour's crumbling voter coalition is that between the ultra liberal metropolitan ascendency (especially with the present obsession with transgender issues) and the Muslim vote, which has historically broken very strongly for Labour but much of which also harbours highly socially conservative views which ceased to be mainstream in society a long time ago. Especially since Corbyn went and Labour replaced Palestine as a priority with mending fences with Jews, an opening has appeared for candidates like Galloway to exploit.

Berrow shouldn't get any baubles. Not because he is Bercow, but because he's only in the frame for one because he managed to snag a cushy job due to his connections in Parliament. No one should get any gongs for doing their job. I've done my job damn well for over 20 years, but when I exit stage left in a few months I'll get a bit of paper from the chief and if I'm lucky, a mounted axe and brass BA tally from whoever chips in to buy it. Convention needs to be chucked out along with all the silly costumes and farting about that goes on in Westminster. There's a country to run and a pandemic to get out of. Arseholes moaning about a bit of glitter need to get with the programme.

Gardenwalker said:

Hancock fans surprise me.

All the evidence we have is that he is in the main a hollow self-promoter and while I don’t doubt he has worked hard during the pandemic, he’s obviously out of his depth.

Compare with Hunt.

Mind you, before Hunt was the disastrous Lansley and under New Labour, Health seemed to be some kind of temporary resting spot.

You have to go back to Bottomley to find another decent Health Sec?

I don’t think @Foxy is the biggest fan of Hunt. Junior doctors etc.

Mind you, as a good medic he doubtless treats all Health Secretaries much as I treat education Secretaries - with a mix of fear, loathing, despair and sheer f***ing astonishment that somebody that ignorant can rise to the top.

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Anything happen in Cheltenham a month ago?

A big horse racing meeting without any crowds?

Well, I believe that was the mane event, but there may have been others.

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Anything happen in Cheltenham a month ago?

A big horse racing meeting without any crowds?

Well, I believe that was the mane event, but there may have been others.

My answer was dodgy anyway that was 3 months ago of course.

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Anything happen in Cheltenham a month ago?

A big horse racing meeting without any crowds?

Well, I believe that was the mane event, but there may have been others.

It was very stable in March.

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Betting Post

F1: one of those weekends when it's hard to find much of anything. Backed Sainz at 3 for best of the rest. If I didn't blog every race weekend I suspect I would've skipped this one.

https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/06/france-pre-race-2021.html

Chance of rain, plus the possibility that Merc’s race pace is better than their qualifying.
I’m tempted to lay Verstappen who’s currently near evens, or back Hamilton.

Thoughts ?

F3 race is on full wets, but though it will clear a bit after lunch.

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Betting Post

F1: one of those weekends when it's hard to find much of anything. Backed Sainz at 3 for best of the rest. If I didn't blog every race weekend I suspect I would've skipped this one.

https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/06/france-pre-race-2021.html

Chance of rain, plus the possibility that Merc’s race pace is better than their qualifying.
I’m tempted to lay Verstappen who’s currently near evens, or back Hamilton.

Thoughts ?

F3 race is on full wets, but though it will clear a bit after lunch.

Do you mind not posting about the race once it's started? Or else using the spoiler alert HTML thing. For those of us not on Sky.

Anabobazina said:

Alistair said:

Anything happen in Cheltenham a month ago?

I dunno. Cheltenham Festival was in March, and didn’t have any guests in any case IIRC. So I dunno. What was it?

In any case, at some stage in the game we have to ride out the exit wave, or surely face it during the winter?

This fred has been reined in.

Anabobazina said:

Alistair said:

Anything happen in Cheltenham a month ago?

I dunno. Cheltenham Festival was in March, and didn’t have any guests in any case IIRC. So I dunno. What was it?

In any case, at some stage in the game we have to ride out the exit wave, or surely face it during the winter?

I can’t think why Cheltenham would be a major spreader event anyway:

1) It’s all outside

2) Almost everyone arrives by car, because it’s a bastard to get to by any mainline train route

3) There’s ample space for crowds to spread out.

There’s no evidence at all that it caused a big spike in infections last year. There was one map which had been misunderstood.

Certainly much less likely to spread infections than the Underground would be.

Anabobazina said:

Alistair said:

Anything happen in Cheltenham a month ago?

I dunno. Cheltenham Festival was in March, and didn’t have any guests in any case IIRC. So I dunno. What was it?

Not a clue.