Page not found – politicalbetting.com

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

Yeah it's completely ridiculous. Of the two approaches at least the government one makes sense.

Labour's proposal probably kills both vaccination takeup rates and the night time entertainment industry in one fell swoop.

Leon said:

geoffw said:

StuartDickson said:

If he’s still alive. He’ll be 78 and he hasn’t looked well for over a decade.

In his favour he’s a teetotaller. In the problem column we can include obesity, sky-high stress levels and an appalling complexion (does he have sleep problems?)

Well I'm 78 today along with Sir Mick.
And happy birthday to you too @LostPassword (though you're a fresher specimen I guess).

I don’t know if this is a compliment or not, but from your comments I guessed you were a wry, slightly waspish early 60s

Happy Birthday

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

Starmer...hes clean through....the keeper is distracted by a lady in the crowd with big boobies...its an open goal....he surely can't miss from here......i don't believe it, he's hit the corner flag.....

eek said:

MattW said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nemtynakht said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT:

Regarding Andy the King of The North Burnham. Mate of mine yesterday pointed out that the Andy Burnham Gary Neville Jamie Carragher axis of northern based commentators seem to reach all kinds of people that serkeir can only dream of.

"Imagine what happens if Gareth Southgate gets involved..." he said, and yeah, imagine. Other countries have seen sports stars transition into politics and become Governor, Prime Minister and President. Even if GNev doesn't fancy the top job himself, he and his northern mates could do a lot to influence a lot of people away from Boris and the bungocracy towards an alternative.

Lots has been said about Burnham not being available for the leadership. Cobblers, a safe seat can be found quickly enough should it come down to it. Stepping away from Westminster as Jezbollah poisoned the well was a smart move - Burnham not only is seen as a clean skin, he is also delivering as Mayor of Greater Lancashire.

I think that is frankly b****cks. In this country to represent Labour you need to use Local Schools and NHS hospitals I am sure we can all think of the Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools whilst advocating closing private schools to their voters. This is because it is a big issue for Labour.

And Andy Burnham is a fantastic opposer and local voice but he frankly got mullered by Milliband and Corbyn. Do we really think he has 'it' to convince people he should be the next leader. Next he's not from London which shouldn't matter but seems to help Labour leaders, and finally Labour should be embarrassed they have not had a woman or ethnic minority leader and might want to do something about that.

Apart from that he's got a pretty good chance.

Burnham made ONE mistake in 2015. Harperson wanted to abstain on some bill, it was totemic, and Burnham got caught in the headlights. He knew that abstaining at 2nd reading didn't let the bill pass, but didn't get the impact the image of this had on the leadership campaign. I and so many others pulled our support of him.

What dropping out of the Commons has allowed him to do is regain his composure and play on the national stage from a smaller platform. The Burnham of today has learned huge amounts vs the Burnham of 2015.

Burnham's other issue is that he can't be mayor of Manchester and also an MP.

Which means if he wishes to lead the Labour party the only way he can do so is by quitting his current role and that risks immediate irrelevancy if he isn't lucky.

Yep. His best shot is to hope that Starmer is still there at the next election (which is big odds-on, Lab are crap at getting rid of leaders), and that he can find a safe seat to get into (which shouldn’t be too difficult).

Burnham’s big worry (from the point of view of leadership ambitions) is that the general election is early, and he looks like he’s running away from Manchester soon after they re-elected him.

Burnham won't run in the GE in 2023. If Starmer goes afterwards they will parachute him into a safe seat if they want him and he wants it.

The timeframe and the way the Labour party works means he can't be parachuted into a safe seat unless Starmer intentionally stayed to give Burnham the chance to do that.

So either Burnham picks a safe seat for the 2023 general election or he isn't in the game.

As I said before - Leicester East and Poplar & Limehouse potentially available soon.

But is it too early for him in the next 6 months?

Both require going against George Galloway - no way would Andy Burnham do that..

StuartDickson said:

MaxPB said:

StuartDickson said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

So lots of wibbling about how poor an olympics we were going to have. Just watching out third gold of the morning now... Not saying we are going to smash it, but some of the chat was a bit previous. 😀

I would love to be wrong, my worry is that in rowing, track cycling and sailing we're going to be well down in London and Rio. Those are a lot of gold medals for us.

Absolutely. Just pointing out how we’ve already got 3 golds and only half way through day 3. Lots of our medals come in odd places, such as the dancing kicking and falling into water etc.

Too many daft events in the Olympics. It should be slashed down to approx 20 key sports, including:

Athletics
Swimming
Cycling
Equestrian
Gymnastics
Fencing
Wrestling
Water polo

Sports which definitely should not be there include:

Soccer
Golf
Tennis
Softball
Skateboarding

Yeah any sport where the Olympic gold isn't the pinnacle is probably something that shouldn't be there. Football, golf and tennis seem like they were added to try and get viewers but ultimately that's not what people watch at the Olympics.

I’m not sure I agree. I think it’s much more subjective than that.

I mean, take road cycling. The Olympics are not the pinnacle of that sport. The 3 grand tours are much more important and prestigious. And if we only look at one-day races, the 5 Monuments are more prestigious, and many other classics plus the WC are on a par. Nevertheless, cycling easily passes the “Olympics Smell Test”.

Rock climbing, hot air ballooning and live pigeon shooting fail. (Although the pigeon shooting was probably a bit smelly.)

Endillion said:

Stand, probably. The question is how the hell does he campaign now that all the big social media sites have essentially neutered him? He's reliant on the MSM making the same mistakes as previously in giving him free publicity, and even then all that publicity will be fiercely negative. Or in a new site with a more liberal attitude coming along that takes enough market share away from FB/Twitter/Instagram to be meaningful, and the Dems not legislating it out of existence on sheer principle.

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cakeism:

NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.

I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?

I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.

Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.

The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).

The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.

Rules such as?

If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.

I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).

Certainly I think the barracking should be dealt with. As you note it is already against rules. Problem is people say they don't like the childish barracking of PMQs but I think they actually do, so even though everyone says it is a problem and therefore should be easy to resolve, they won't do so as secretly the MPs know people like the drama.

Bercow, for all his faults, seemed to know that, and so while he would criticise it he turned it into his own comedy stand up hour while telling them to be quiet.

Nigel_Foremain said:

NerysHughes said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

FFS.

I know OGH loves SKS, but he has had so many open goals that he has missed, he is just not a good politician.

That may be true, but open goals are a target rich environment when you have a cretin like Bozo as PM. You don't have to be Marcus Rashford to miss one once in a while when so many are presented on a daily basis.

kjh said:

NerysHughes said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

FFS.

I know OGH loves SKS, but he has had so many open goals that he has missed, he is just not a good politician.

OGH is a LD

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cakeism:

NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.

I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?

I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.

Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.

The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).

The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.

Rules such as?

If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.

I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).

Certainly I think the barracking should be dealt with. As you note it is already against rules. Problem is people say they don't like the childish barracking of PMQs but I think they actually do, so even though everyone says it is a problem and therefore should be easy to resolve, they won't do so as secretly the MPs know people like the drama.

Bercow, for all his faults, seemed to know that, and so while he would criticise it he turned it into his own comedy stand up hour while telling them to be quiet.

Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.

eek said:

Charles said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nemtynakht said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT:

Regarding Andy the King of The North Burnham. Mate of mine yesterday pointed out that the Andy Burnham Gary Neville Jamie Carragher axis of northern based commentators seem to reach all kinds of people that serkeir can only dream of.

"Imagine what happens if Gareth Southgate gets involved..." he said, and yeah, imagine. Other countries have seen sports stars transition into politics and become Governor, Prime Minister and President. Even if GNev doesn't fancy the top job himself, he and his northern mates could do a lot to influence a lot of people away from Boris and the bungocracy towards an alternative.

Lots has been said about Burnham not being available for the leadership. Cobblers, a safe seat can be found quickly enough should it come down to it. Stepping away from Westminster as Jezbollah poisoned the well was a smart move - Burnham not only is seen as a clean skin, he is also delivering as Mayor of Greater Lancashire.

I think that is frankly b****cks. In this country to represent Labour you need to use Local Schools and NHS hospitals I am sure we can all think of the Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools whilst advocating closing private schools to their voters. This is because it is a big issue for Labour.

And Andy Burnham is a fantastic opposer and local voice but he frankly got mullered by Milliband and Corbyn. Do we really think he has 'it' to convince people he should be the next leader. Next he's not from London which shouldn't matter but seems to help Labour leaders, and finally Labour should be embarrassed they have not had a woman or ethnic minority leader and might want to do something about that.

Apart from that he's got a pretty good chance.

Burnham made ONE mistake in 2015. Harperson wanted to abstain on some bill, it was totemic, and Burnham got caught in the headlights. He knew that abstaining at 2nd reading didn't let the bill pass, but didn't get the impact the image of this had on the leadership campaign. I and so many others pulled our support of him.

What dropping out of the Commons has allowed him to do is regain his composure and play on the national stage from a smaller platform. The Burnham of today has learned huge amounts vs the Burnham of 2015.

Burnham's other issue is that he can't be mayor of Manchester and also an MP.

Which means if he wishes to lead the Labour party the only way he can do so is by quitting his current role and that risks immediate irrelevancy if he isn't lucky.

I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?

Yes

Clause VII.
Party officers and statutory officers
1. Party officers
A. Leader and deputy leader
i. There shall be a leader and deputy leader
of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader
and deputy leader of the PLP.
ii. The leader and deputy leader of the Party
shall be elected or re-elected from among
Commons members of the PLP in
accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4
Clause II below, at a Party conference
convened in accordance with clause VI
above.

RochdalePioneers said:

Starmer can Fuck Right Off on Vax Passports. Support their use for Nightclubs and Football? He was *attacking* the nightclubs issue on Wednesday last week. He doesn't want to see them in daily use for essential things? What does he think they will do? We need them for a nighclub but not for a train ride or museum?

"Your papers please" is what the west was against in the cold war. Can't go about your life without having to stand in line and show your credentials to some gimboid. I hear some people say "other countries have ID cards" and yes they do, a photo ID like our driving licence. Useful things. What they don't have - and nobody proposed before is "your papers please" becoming part of daily life.

To quote Sigourney Weaver's Tawney Maddison on Galaxy Quest: "Well Fuck that."

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NerysHughes said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

FFS.

I know OGH loves SKS, but he has had so many open goals that he has missed, he is just not a good politician.

That may be true, but open goals are a target rich environment when you have a cretin like Bozo as PM. You don't have to be Marcus Rashford to miss one once in a while when so many are presented on a daily basis.

Oh come on! You don't have to be a fan of Boris to wonder whether Starmer is ever going to put the ball into the net.

If Boris was as much of a cretin as you make out, you'd think he should be polling like Corbyn - rather than Starmer polling like Corbyn.

DavidL said:

Many happy returns to @geoffw

On topic this looks like a solid lay to me. The American legal system grinds embarrassingly slow but I suspect that Trump will be up to his armpits in litigation and quite possibly insolvency by then.

eek said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

Yeah it's completely ridiculous. Of the two approaches at least the government one makes sense.

Labour's proposal probably kills both vaccination takeup rates and the night time entertainment industry in one fell swoop.

Indeed.

Vaxxports for universities would probably do the job, if it guarantees that universities can then operate without interruptions and without social distancing.

Plus it would be in line with vaccines being required for school education in many places.

If the Universities are going to require double vax for Halls of residence or lectures they really need to say so now so that potential students can both get their first vaccination and have sufficient time before the start of term for their second one. Basically students will have about 3 weeks to get that first vaccination.

Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.

Given that a lot of Universities will be opening mid September it's already too late to insist on both vaccinations.

A lot of students will have had their first one's already. But yes, if you add on the fact that it takes about 3 weeks for the vaccine to be fully effective time is extremely tight. There was an Education Minister (I think) on this morning talking about adoptions etc but she was asked about it and suggested it might be under consideration. The Universities should be acting themselves on this or they may well risk being sued by those unfortunate enough to be infected if they prove to be one of the unlucky ones.

And if you haven't had your first vaccination yet?

Now I can see the reason why you may insist upon dual vaccination but in reality it's too late to insist on it, if you really wanted to do that you needed to do it as soon as it was opened up to 18 year olds.

NerysHughes said:

kjh said:

NerysHughes said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

FFS.

I know OGH loves SKS, but he has had so many open goals that he has missed, he is just not a good politician.

OGH is a LD

He may be but he does love SKS, and he hates BJ, which is why we get header after header criticising BJ and nothing about Labours terrible polling performance ove the last 6 months.

CarlottaVance said:

Children's minister Vicky Ford on @BBCr4today refusing to rule out making double jabbing for university students a precondition of access to lectures and accommodation halls......

No.10 very much not killing off this story.

"We obviously reserve the right to protect the public, and reduce transmission....We are still looking at the scope for vaccination certifications

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1419623845485584387?s=20

CarlottaVance said:

Children's minister Vicky Ford on @BBCr4today refusing to rule out making double jabbing for university students a precondition of access to lectures and accommodation halls......

No.10 very much not killing off this story.

"We obviously reserve the right to protect the public, and reduce transmission....We are still looking at the scope for vaccination certifications

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1419623845485584387?s=20

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cakeism:

NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.

I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?

I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.

Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.

The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).

The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.

Rules such as?

If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.

I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).

It's been interesting watching Euro-Twitter tuning Dawn Butler into a hero for ethical politics.

Dawn Butler is a fairly poor MP significantly over promoted by Corbyn from loyalty (like much of the actual cabinet), that is separate from the issues of the PM being addicted to lying and the HoC rules failing.

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cakeism:

NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.

I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?

I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.

Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.

The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).

The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.

Rules such as?

If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.

I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).

Certainly I think the barracking should be dealt with. As you note it is already against rules. Problem is people say they don't like the childish barracking of PMQs but I think they actually do, so even though everyone says it is a problem and therefore should be easy to resolve, they won't do so as secretly the MPs know people like the drama.

Bercow, for all his faults, seemed to know that, and so while he would criticise it he turned it into his own comedy stand up hour while telling them to be quiet.

Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.

Surely more to do with the fairly token presence of MPs actually in the House?

No, even pre-Covid. Check Youtube and compare PMQs under Theresa May and Boris. I imagine CCHQ finally twigged (45 years after they started it) that barracking the opposition meant the PM had trouble hearing the question. Think back to Theresa May having to lean in to the speakers in the front bench. Trouble answering too, as the temptation, especially when new to the job is to try and shout over the noise, rather than speak normally and trust the microphones will pick up what is said.

It also can have a major effect on your ability to concentrate and deliver that prepared "off the cuff" zinger. I suspect Boris is one of those who finds the noise simply distracting.

MattW said:

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cakeism:

NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.

I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?

I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.

Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.

The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).

The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.

Rules such as?

If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.

I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).

It's been interesting watching Euro-Twitter tuning Dawn Butler into a hero for ethical politics.

Dawn Butler is a fairly poor MP significantly over promoted by Corbyn from loyalty (like much of the actual cabinet), that is separate from the issues of the PM being addicted to lying and the HoC rules failing.

I think "fairly poor" is a bit of a mild TBH.

My point is about the attachment of Euro-twitter, and the EU Brussels media, to anything that will diss the UK.

The serious point is that a brown-nose media will play into EuCos worst tendencies, which will undermine the likelihood of the EU evolving into a functioning organisation. That will cost a lot of people.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I notice GB News are now streaming live on YouTube....to 113 people....not 113k...113.....

Its not going to even last 6 months is it.

Fysics_Teacher said:

eek said:

Charles said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nemtynakht said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT:

Regarding Andy the King of The North Burnham. Mate of mine yesterday pointed out that the Andy Burnham Gary Neville Jamie Carragher axis of northern based commentators seem to reach all kinds of people that serkeir can only dream of.

"Imagine what happens if Gareth Southgate gets involved..." he said, and yeah, imagine. Other countries have seen sports stars transition into politics and become Governor, Prime Minister and President. Even if GNev doesn't fancy the top job himself, he and his northern mates could do a lot to influence a lot of people away from Boris and the bungocracy towards an alternative.

Lots has been said about Burnham not being available for the leadership. Cobblers, a safe seat can be found quickly enough should it come down to it. Stepping away from Westminster as Jezbollah poisoned the well was a smart move - Burnham not only is seen as a clean skin, he is also delivering as Mayor of Greater Lancashire.

I think that is frankly b****cks. In this country to represent Labour you need to use Local Schools and NHS hospitals I am sure we can all think of the Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools whilst advocating closing private schools to their voters. This is because it is a big issue for Labour.

And Andy Burnham is a fantastic opposer and local voice but he frankly got mullered by Milliband and Corbyn. Do we really think he has 'it' to convince people he should be the next leader. Next he's not from London which shouldn't matter but seems to help Labour leaders, and finally Labour should be embarrassed they have not had a woman or ethnic minority leader and might want to do something about that.

Apart from that he's got a pretty good chance.

Burnham made ONE mistake in 2015. Harperson wanted to abstain on some bill, it was totemic, and Burnham got caught in the headlights. He knew that abstaining at 2nd reading didn't let the bill pass, but didn't get the impact the image of this had on the leadership campaign. I and so many others pulled our support of him.

What dropping out of the Commons has allowed him to do is regain his composure and play on the national stage from a smaller platform. The Burnham of today has learned huge amounts vs the Burnham of 2015.

Burnham's other issue is that he can't be mayor of Manchester and also an MP.

Which means if he wishes to lead the Labour party the only way he can do so is by quitting his current role and that risks immediate irrelevancy if he isn't lucky.

I know you need to be an MP to *lead* the Labour Party. Do you need to be an MP to be *elected* as leader?

Yes

Clause VII.
Party officers and statutory officers
1. Party officers
A. Leader and deputy leader
i. There shall be a leader and deputy leader
of the Party who shall, ex-officio, be leader
and deputy leader of the PLP.
ii. The leader and deputy leader of the Party
shall be elected or re-elected from among
Commons members of the PLP in
accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4
Clause II below, at a Party conference
convened in accordance with clause VI
above.

So what would happen if they didn’t have any MPs?

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cakeism:

NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.

I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?

I think maintaining some amount of civility and decorum in a deliberative assembly is a good idea personally, but I dont have an issue with people thinking the rules are wrong.

What I object to is people who know the rules, and know it is not unusual for assemblies to have such rules, acting like it is a disgrace that such rules exist, that the existence of such rules in themselves is a unique sign of terrible British politics.

When the whole point of the stunt was to get kicked out I also find it disingenuous for the person involved to pretend they did not want it to happen. Shed have been stymied if shed been allowed to remain.

I'd also say I for one dont think politicians do lie that often, at least directly. It's too risky to be worth it, even if omission and obfuscation will have similar effect. Its why the direct liars stand out.

Civility and decorum in PMQs? Are we really watching the same thing? Archaic rules with pretence of politeness does not equal civility and decorum at all.

The rules exist for more than just pmqs. I'm a firm believer that just because standards often slip does not mean you should just give up on having them at all.

Debate is not welcomed or rewarded in the Commons, so you could just reduce it to idiots shouting that the other side are liars, but frankly even just making people exercise the grey matter necessary to have at least a pretence of politeness seems worth it.

And if things are ever to improve that will be easier if it has not completely devolved into idiots shouting at each other all the time (not just pmqs).

The rules don't work and some are arbitrary and unnecessary. We should come up with new rules that do actually lead to better debate, not protect the old ones for fear of making a bad situation worse.

Rules such as?

If people ignore rules around debate now, and they do, creating new ones wont magically make them work.

The problem is not the rules it is the political culture - tackling parliamentary language rules affects that not a jot, unless I'm to believe being able to insult people (factually or otherwise) will improve that culture.

Why would being able to call someone a liar affect anything? They can already do that directly out of the chamber and do, or imply it another way in the chamber.

This is like people assuming a codified constitution would solve all our issues, when codification doesnt prevent confusion and dispute. But at least that has more chance of working.

I would look at other legislatures around the world and try and identify best practices that could be implemented here. Also select committee rules work much better so what can we learn from there?

A key one would be stopping the barracking to drown out a person saying something you don't like. Rather than the speaker spending 2-3 minutes out of seemingly every important session having to point out the "member must be heard", anyone who does shout them down should be getting a ban similar to Butlers and you would instantly have 2-3 minutes extra per PMQs for answering questions (well obfuscating).

Certainly I think the barracking should be dealt with. As you note it is already against rules. Problem is people say they don't like the childish barracking of PMQs but I think they actually do, so even though everyone says it is a problem and therefore should be easy to resolve, they won't do so as secretly the MPs know people like the drama.

Bercow, for all his faults, seemed to know that, and so while he would criticise it he turned it into his own comedy stand up hour while telling them to be quiet.

Barracking at PMQs has been greatly reduced at the behest of Boris and the Conservative whips.

Surely more to do with the fairly token presence of MPs actually in the House?

No, even pre-Covid. Check Youtube and compare PMQs under Theresa May and Boris. I imagine CCHQ finally twigged (45 years after they started it) that barracking the opposition meant the PM had trouble hearing the question. Think back to Theresa May having to lean in to the speakers in the front bench. Trouble answering too, as the temptation, especially when new to the job is to try and shout over the noise, rather than speak normally and trust the microphones will pick up what is said.

It also can have a major effect on your ability to concentrate and deliver that prepared "off the cuff" zinger. I suspect Boris is one of those who finds the noise simply distracting.

Eszpecially in the light of what we know about covid and what it can do to the ears in terms of deafness. Possibly his often miserable performance is partly because he can't so easily pick out the question against the mating-baboon chorus from his backbenchers.

NerysHughes said:

kjh said:

NerysHughes said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

FFS.

I know OGH loves SKS, but he has had so many open goals that he has missed, he is just not a good politician.

OGH is a LD

He may be but he does love SKS, and he hates BJ, which is why we get header after header criticising BJ and nothing about Labours terrible polling performance ove the last 6 months.

Quincel said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

FF43 said:

Leon said:

For SPOTY bettors, a reminder of Tom Daley’s story


‘Tom Daley was:
14 when he went to his first Olympics.
15 when he first became world champion.
17 when his dad and mentor Rob died from a brain tumour.
18 when he won London 2012 bronze.
22 when he won Rio bronze.
27 when he won #Tokyo2020  gold.’

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1419570498812485632?s=21

How can he not win?

He wins. And bravo

Daley should win the Sports Personality of the Year Award on the straightforward grounds that he is unusually personable compared with most single-minded results-driven sportspeople

Not being personable was no hindrance to Nigel Mansell, or Andy mumbling Murray.

On a tangent, I believe Andy Murray is much more interesting than we see and the mumbling is an intentional act. As a young player he was once interviewed and mentioned in football he supports 'Scotland, and whoever plays England of course' as a joke. But his rather dry tone and the media's lack of subtlety meant that there were a spate of headlines about his rude Scottish arrogance. He decided after to be as un-newsworthy as possible in future so he could focus on the tennis.

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NerysHughes said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's pathetic from Starmer.

Stupid politically, as well as being the wrong thing.

Johnson's excuse is that he's a moron easily led astray. What's Starmer's?

FFS.

I know OGH loves SKS, but he has had so many open goals that he has missed, he is just not a good politician.

That may be true, but open goals are a target rich environment when you have a cretin like Bozo as PM. You don't have to be Marcus Rashford to miss one once in a while when so many are presented on a daily basis.

Oh come on! You don't have to be a fan of Boris to wonder whether Starmer is ever going to put the ball into the net.

If Boris was as much of a cretin as you make out, you'd think he should be polling like Corbyn - rather than Starmer polling like Corbyn.

Sadly for the long term future of the Conservative Party, the electorate will almost inevitably catch up with those of us that have always thought Boris Johnson is a liability, unless of course he stands down to spend more time with his family, or whomever he likes to spend time with by then.

Of course they will Nigel, of course they will. 😉

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

As of this moment, Britain is 4th in the medal table, and Germany is.... 36th.

It will presumably evolve but still. Lol

At one point yesterday we were behind Kosovo.

What is this weird medal placing for ROC (no flag, republic of China, Taiwan?) at number 8 - but also ‘Chinese Taipei’ at 22?!


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2021/jul/26/tokyo-2020-olympics-full-medal-table

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

As of this moment, Britain is 4th in the medal table, and Germany is.... 36th.

It will presumably evolve but still. Lol

At one point yesterday we were behind Kosovo.

What is this weird medal placing for ROC (no flag, republic of China, Taiwan?) at number 8 - but also ‘Chinese Taipei’ at 22?!


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2021/jul/26/tokyo-2020-olympics-full-medal-table

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

As of this moment, Britain is 4th in the medal table, and Germany is.... 36th.

It will presumably evolve but still. Lol

At one point yesterday we were behind Kosovo.

What is this weird medal placing for ROC (no flag, republic of China, Taiwan?) at number 8 - but also ‘Chinese Taipei’ at 22?!


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2021/jul/26/tokyo-2020-olympics-full-medal-table

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
So Labour’s stance is passports plus a test.

Yeah it's completely ridiculous. Of the two approaches at least the government one makes sense.

Labour's proposal probably kills both vaccination takeup rates and the night time entertainment industry in one fell swoop.

Indeed.

Vaxxports for universities would probably do the job, if it guarantees that universities can then operate without interruptions and without social distancing.

Plus it would be in line with vaccines being required for school education in many places.

If the Universities are going to require double vax for Halls of residence or lectures they really need to say so now so that potential students can both get their first vaccination and have sufficient time before the start of term for their second one. Basically students will have about 3 weeks to get that first vaccination.

Personally, I think that they should. As the father of someone going off to Halls at the beginning of October I absolutely want not only my son double vaccinated but also all his fellow college members and those he just might meet in the student union, should he succumb to the temptation of drink.

Nigelb said:

Don't know how big of an effect this will turn out to be, but it's certainly got some Democrats very worried indeed.

‘We’re f---ed’: Dems fear turnout catastrophe from GOP voting laws
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/26/democrats-gop-voting-laws-crisis-500726

AlistairM said:

CarlottaVance said:

British understatement:

Laugh out loud moment with @Tompid there in the @BBCSport post-race interview.

Interviewer: How long has this been your dream?

Tom: Not that long really. Late last year? I'm glad I didn't have the stress of four years preparing and thinking about it.

Amazing.

https://twitter.com/ruddick/status/1419578809121222657?s=20

It isn't really an understatement. He is a multi-talented bike rider who has been destined for great things in almost any category he enters. For example in 2017 he won:

- British Junior Cycle-Cross Championship
- Junior World Road Race Championship
- Paris-Roubaix Juniors
- British National Scratch Championships (track event)
- Junior World Time Trial Championships

He probably determined that the MTB event was the one where he had most chance of getting a medal and was a pre-race favourite despite only training for it for less than a year.

He is with Ineos Grenadiers on the road and is expected to compete in his first grand tour at the Vuelta starting on 14th August. It will be interesting to see how he gets on!

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Strange how China don't dominate the ladies swimming anymore isn't it.....at one point they appeared to win every event in WR times.

All of the Aussie coaches went back to Australia.

I am not sure that was the decisive factor....

DougSeal said:

It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

*Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

Leon said:

Just going back to the social media response to Tom Daley’s gold

Here is Boris:

‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’

Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad

Sir Kir ‘royale’ Starmer:

‘It’s a Magic Monday for #TeamGB  at #Tokyo2020 

🥇 @adam_peaty 🥇 @TomDaley1994 🥇 @mattydiver 🥇 @TomPid 🥈 @Lixsanyee

Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’

Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot

Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later

‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’

That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm

Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Just going back to the social media response to Tom Daley’s gold

Here is Boris:

‘Golds in the pool for Adam Peaty, Tom Daley and Matty Lee and another for mountain biker Tom Pidcock! What a fantastic day for @TeamGB and British sport! #TeamGB’

Not bad. Not great. But certainly written by a spad

Sir Kir ‘royale’ Starmer:

‘It’s a Magic Monday for #TeamGB  at #Tokyo2020 

🥇 @adam_peaty 🥇 @TomDaley1994 🥇 @mattydiver 🥇 @TomPid 🥈 @Lixsanyee

Plus congratulations to @LaurenW_TKD for making her Taekwondo final. #Olympics’

Pretty bad. Automative. Surely a bot

Here is Andy Burnham’s first tweet, before he found that genius photo later

‘Ah, how good is that for @TomDaley1994?! Rarely has an Olympic Gold been more deserved.’

That ‘Ah’ then a comma is superbly done. It sounds real. It’s like a youngish father emoting at the TV over breakfast even as his 3 year old hurls milky Weetabix at Dad. The tweet is thoughtful and warm

Did Burnham actually write it? Who knows. But Boris (with 5m followers) and Starmer (1m) have both got notably fewer likes and retweets than Andy burnham (0.5m).

Shit, I almost found myself liking a @Leon post again. That must be three times today! What is happening? Have I entered an alternative universe? Have the aliens assimilated his PB account?

noneoftheabove said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cakeism:

NEW: Keir Starmer says he supports the deputy speaker for kicking out Dawn Butler but he also supports Dawn Butler for what she said

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419595475485925376?s=20

True, but I think its defendable. He agrees with her view, even though he agrees the rules mean the Deputy Speaker had to take that action.

It's the histrionics about it being outrageous there are rules on parliamentary language that irritate me, the idea it was wrong she be made to leave (and she obviously wanted that outcome or the stunt would have failed).

I have less of an issue with people saying she was right, even though it meant she was tossed out as a result, than faux outrage about the existence of rules.

I am not outraged by the rules but think they are pretty pathetic. Most of the country think politicians lie (because they do lie). Why on earth shouldn't MPs be free to say so in political debate?

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

mwadams said:

DougSeal said:

It looks as if there will never be a Gen X (born between 1964 and 1979 according to the US Social Security Administration) President. Boomers (plus Biden who is older than the Boomers) will have dominated the Presidency from 1992 to 2028 at this rate whereupon the Millennials will likely take over as the changing of the guard. Kamala Harris maybe - but she’s unlikely to win and on the cusp anyway. I certainly can’t think of a potential contender born in the 70s*

*Mia Culpa - de Santis was born in ‘78.

This, basically, is the story of GenX. We are a pointless generation, who serve only to pay for the pensions of the Boomers.

One has to know one's place. Those of us in the private sector merely exist to pay the pensions of those in the public sector, and to nod in acquiescence when they demand yet another pay rise while many in the private sector have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.

Thank you.

I look up to Kle4....

rottenborough said:

Tory MP, Steve Baker: "What do people think that tyranny is? It's this total control over what you do. It's important that you write to your MP."

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1419574109722251265

Morris_Dancer said:

Hey, if the Barack Obama-endorsed Dawn Butler says someone isn't telling the truth, I believe her.

[The PM is full of shit. And she's hardly the epitome of integrity given the Wikipedia nonsense of yesteryear.]