Page not found – politicalbetting.com

moonshine said:

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

It is reassuring that there are still people like Baker in Parliament.

Nigelb said:

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?

Arguments over the leadership would not then be foremost among their problems.

Charles 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?

Because “debates” would quickly become “you’re a liar!” “No you are!”

Candy said:

Quincel said:

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.

The reason Andy Murray doesn't like talking much to the press, is because the press kept asking him about Dunblane (he was an eight-year-old hiding in a classroom in that school when the massacre happened).

He was uncomfortable with that - he's not into the recent fashion of talking about trauma and victimhood in childhood.

His mumbling and brusqueness has been successful in that most people don't know about the Dunblane thing and only know that he was the Wimbledon Champion.

CarlottaVance said:

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (+1)
LAB: 37% (+2)
LDEM: 6% (-4)

via @DeltapollUK, 23 - 26 Jul
Chgs. w/ 20 Jun

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1419628947248123904?s=20

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1419632588143083520

Looks like Labour is going up - but what is still in question is the Tory share

MattW 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.

When was their last serious disorder in Westminster? Has there been any in the last century?

I guess we have incidents like a couple of demos in the Chamber (eg the foxhunting powder puff thrown at Tony Blair, and didn't we have a couple of women jumping down from the public gallery?).

I think that could be one measure.

Comparing to the punch-ups in other places, suggests that it works. eg Fun in Tokyo in 1960:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpY_CO2Zdhk

On DB, I wonder if she will repeat her allegations outside Parliament where she can be help to account? There's at least some truth in them, so here may be mileage in it.

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

moonshine said:

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

It is reassuring that there are still people like Baker in Parliament.

What would help Baker more than anything else, of course, is if there was some sign Tory voters and swing voters were defecting to the Lib Dems or Reform.

There is almost none.

So many people on here and elsewhere want others to fight their freedom battles for them.

All the while, to stay ,in with the in crowd, they pour scorn and bile on the people who are doing the fighting, and the media outlets, like Talk Radio and GB News, that are giving the fighters a platform.

It doesn't help that the "fighters" on Talk Radio and GB News are batshit crazy and harming the freedom agenda.

As are antivaxxers like you.

Candy 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 is the big difference between the USA and Britain.

In Brtain, Gen X is making all the weather. Cameron (born 1966) and Clegg (born 1967) were Gen X.

Boris (born 1964) and Farage (born 1964) are both Gen X. Dominic Cummings was born in 1971.

You could say Brexit was delivered by Gen X as it was the 40 and 50-somethings that tipped the vote towards Leave. They are also the ones who gave Boris his majority - but 22 years earlier, they were the ones who put Blair in power.

I think it's to do with Britain's baby boom being delayed by grim post-war austerity and it didn't really happen till the 1960's. In the US, the biggest generations are the Boomers and the Millenials. But in the UK, the biggest generation is Gen X.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I cannot support Team GB, one of their sponsors is ALDI.

FFS, have we really sunk so low?

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

moonshine said:

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

It is reassuring that there are still people like Baker in Parliament.

What would help Baker more than anything else, of course, is if there was some sign Tory voters and swing voters were defecting to the Lib Dems or Reform.

There is almost none.

So many people on here and elsewhere want others to fight their freedom battles for them.

All the while, to stay ,in with the in crowd, they pour scorn and bile on the people who are doing the fighting, and the media outlets, like Talk Radio and GB News, that are giving the fighters a platform.

It doesn't help that the "fighters" on Talk Radio and GB News are batshit crazy and harming the freedom agenda.

As are antivaxxers like you.

I was just wondering how Chesham and Amersham had escaped notice.

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

moonshine said:

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

It is reassuring that there are still people like Baker in Parliament.

What would help Baker more than anything else, of course, is if there was some sign Tory voters and swing voters were defecting to the Lib Dems or Reform.

There is almost none.

So many people on here and elsewhere want others to fight their freedom battles for them.

All the while, to stay ,in with the in crowd, they pour scorn and bile on the people who are doing the fighting, and the media outlets, like Talk Radio and GB News, that are giving the fighters a platform.

It doesn't help that the "fighters" on Talk Radio and GB News are batshit crazy and harming the freedom agenda.

As are antivaxxers like you.

I was just wondering how Chesham and Amersham had escaped notice.

Chesham and Amersham was entirely about NIMBYism and not remotely about "freedom".

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

eek said:

John Bull is currently posting a twitter thread that started on Supermarket logistics (which says nothing new for anyone who has been around here a while)

What is however interesting (and starts at https://twitter.com/garius/status/1419612068047728644 ) is his overview of Tea and World War II

That is the most interesting but of ww2 history I've read for years. And ties in with my anecdote (which I can't find confirmed on the internet) about how Churchill sent destroyers to resort the Seville orange harvest home, and the Spanish thought we must have a secret weapon made out of oranges because nobody would go to those lengths for the sake of marmalade.

In 1925-26, as it became obvious to the Baldwin government that a general strike was only a matter of time, the Home Secretary, William Joynson-Hicks, made the decision to buy up all yeast stocks in the land and distribute them centrally.

This was to ensure that every baker in the land had two weeks’ supply of yeast in addition to flour.

In his unpublished memoirs (now in the East Sussex Record Office) he was extremely pleased with the effect of his efforts.

I don’t remember them mentioning tea, but I could be wrong.

Another parallel was MacGregor. In advance of the Miners’ Strike, again seeing it was inevitable, he made sure that the vast amount of surplus coal that uneconomic pits were producing were stockpiled at the power stations, along with the chemicals needed to burn them. That way, even if railway workers went on strike in support, the lights would stay on.

I don't think anyone Took offence at your earlier lotr based paronomasia. But try not to make a hobbit of it.

Carnyx said:

MattW 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.

When was their last serious disorder in Westminster? Has there been any in the last century?

I guess we have incidents like a couple of demos in the Chamber (eg the foxhunting powder puff thrown at Tony Blair, and didn't we have a couple of women jumping down from the public gallery?).

I think that could be one measure.

Comparing to the punch-ups in other places, suggests that it works. eg Fun in Tokyo in 1960:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpY_CO2Zdhk

On DB, I wonder if she will repeat her allegations outside Parliament where she can be help to account? There's at least some truth in them, so here may be mileage in it.

Mr Heseltine and the Mace. Potential disorder, anyway - no actual impact IIRC.

Carnyx said:

MattW 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.

When was their last serious disorder in Westminster? Has there been any in the last century?

I guess we have incidents like a couple of demos in the Chamber (eg the foxhunting powder puff thrown at Tony Blair, and didn't we have a couple of women jumping down from the public gallery?).

I think that could be one measure.

Comparing to the punch-ups in other places, suggests that it works. eg Fun in Tokyo in 1960:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpY_CO2Zdhk

On DB, I wonder if she will repeat her allegations outside Parliament where she can be help to account? There's at least some truth in them, so here may be mileage in it.

Mr Heseltine and the Mace. Potential disorder, anyway - no actual impact IIRC.

Pulpstar said:

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."

"Papers" are already required for more than half of most people's total lifetime nightclub visits...

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

eek said:

John Bull is currently posting a twitter thread that started on Supermarket logistics (which says nothing new for anyone who has been around here a while)

What is however interesting (and starts at https://twitter.com/garius/status/1419612068047728644 ) is his overview of Tea and World War II

That is the most interesting but of ww2 history I've read for years. And ties in with my anecdote (which I can't find confirmed on the internet) about how Churchill sent destroyers to resort the Seville orange harvest home, and the Spanish thought we must have a secret weapon made out of oranges because nobody would go to those lengths for the sake of marmalade.

In 1925-26, as it became obvious to the Baldwin government that a general strike was only a matter of time, the Home Secretary, William Joynson-Hicks, made the decision to buy up all yeast stocks in the land and distribute them centrally.

This was to ensure that every baker in the land had two weeks’ supply of yeast in addition to flour.

In his unpublished memoirs (now in the East Sussex Record Office) he was extremely pleased with the effect of his efforts.

I don’t remember them mentioning tea, but I could be wrong.

Another parallel was MacGregor. In advance of the Miners’ Strike, again seeing it was inevitable, he made sure that the vast amount of surplus coal that uneconomic pits were producing were stockpiled at the power stations, along with the chemicals needed to burn them. That way, even if railway workers went on strike in support, the lights would stay on.

I don't think anyone Took offence at your earlier lotr based paronomasia. But try not to make a hobbit of it.

Your efforts would dwarve mine, and then it would be orcward.

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

Shopping anecdata from deep Surrey: masks almost disappeared on the street, though still almost universal in Sainsbury (both staff and customers). Staff in small shops mostly no longer bothering. Still some of that courteous pavement avoidance stuff which some were sceptical about, but a generally relaxed air. "Normal life with reasonable precautions where it's no trouble" sums it up, I think.

My rule of thumb is that if the staff are wearing them I may as well.

That was the case at the cinema, though theyd ended the social distancing at the urinals

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh nooooo...disaster in the kicky kicky...

TOPPING said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh nooooo...disaster in the kicky kicky...

Mate why are you being so patronising about this?

Charles said:

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.

Although doesn’t it make you at all uncomfortable that private companies can seriously restrict the ability of a bona fide* candidate for the US presidency to campaign in equal terms?

* it seems odd to use that phrase in this case!

FrancisUrquhart said:

CarlottaVance said:

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (+1)
LAB: 37% (+2)
LDEM: 6% (-4)

via @DeltapollUK, 23 - 26 Jul
Chgs. w/ 20 Jun

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1419628947248123904?s=20

Yellow peril supporters all on holiday?

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh nooooo...disaster in the kicky kicky...

Mate why are you being so patronising about this?

Is it patronising? I remember watching it during the Greek games and the commentator said something like 'if you've just joined us this isnt the international bouncing competition'

FF43 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?

Because lying to Parliament is an egregious breach, almost at the level of lying in court. Ministers who lie to parliament are I believe required by the Ministerial code to resign. Saying an MP lied to parliament is therefore a very serious accusation and is treated accordingly.

But if Johnson isn't going to resign for lying, which he clearly won't, the whole lying to parliament taboo is breached.

Thread on this topic.

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1418253113023246337

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I cannot support Team GB, one of their sponsors is ALDI.

FFS, have we really sunk so low?

They’re only a Lidl off the pace.

I haven't been able to checkout who the sponsors are

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

moonshine said:

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

It is reassuring that there are still people like Baker in Parliament.

What would help Baker more than anything else, of course, is if there was some sign Tory voters and swing voters were defecting to the Lib Dems or Reform.

There is almost none.

So many people on here and elsewhere want others to fight their freedom battles for them.

All the while, to stay ,in with the in crowd, they pour scorn and bile on the people who are doing the fighting, and the media outlets, like Talk Radio and GB News, that are giving the fighters a platform.

It doesn't help that the "fighters" on Talk Radio and GB News are batshit crazy and harming the freedom agenda.

As are antivaxxers like you.

I was just wondering how Chesham and Amersham had escaped notice.

Chesham and Amersham was entirely about NIMBYism and not remotely about "freedom".

TheScreamingEagles said:

I cannot support Team GB, one of their sponsors is ALDI.

FFS, have we really sunk so low?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Embarrassing dad moment....

Ariarne Titmus’s coach after she beat Katie Ledecky in the 400m free

https://twitter.com/Ben13Porter/status/1419485558007545856?s=20

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Wild swimming, now crap noughties pop music...

Bring it all back: why naff noughties pop is suddenly cool again

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/jul/26/bring-it-all-back-why-naff-noughties-pop-is-suddenly-cool-again

It's the nostalgia cycle - we had the 90s nostalgia over the last 5 years or so.

Classic computer games are also worth a fortune. I believe things like baseball cards (and other sports cards) and Pokemon also became massive again during the pandemic.

When will they bring back Top Trumps....

Andy_JS said:

Probably already asked, but does Team GB including Northern Ireland?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Floater, that's very sad to hear.

Mr. kle4, XCOM was also a revival. They originally wanted it to be a more FPS type game, I think, and Firaxis had to fight for it to be truer to the original, which proved a very smart choice indeed.

Carnyx said:

FF43 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?

Because lying to Parliament is an egregious breach, almost at the level of lying in court. Ministers who lie to parliament are I believe required by the Ministerial code to resign. Saying an MP lied to parliament is therefore a very serious accusation and is treated accordingly.

But if Johnson isn't going to resign for lying, which he clearly won't, the whole lying to parliament taboo is breached.

Thread on this topic.

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1418253113023246337

As with the difference between a forgery and a replica, lying surely implies an intent to deceive. The evidence to hand may only be that someone is saying something wrong.

That person can be

- misinformed of the facts
- honestly misinterpret them
- knowingly lie

So it would be unfair to say 'liar!' at once. Technically. But even so.

The most interesting category is those who don't know that they are lying, who actually believe themselves.

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andy_JS said:

Probably already asked, but does Team GB including Northern Ireland?

Yes. Team GB is a branding thing, its is actually the UK Olympic team.

I had some idea that NI athletes had basically freedom to choose between GB and Ireland in Olympic events.

Interesting that medal tables usually cite “Great Britain”.

Floater said:

This is unusually blunt

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/politik-ausland/sebastian-kurz-exklusiv-ich-will-diese-kranke-ideologie-nicht-in-europa-77190376.bild.html

AUSTRIA'S CHANCELLOR BRIEFLY ON IMMIGRANT ISLAMISM
"I don't want this sick ideology in Europe"

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andy_JS said:

Probably already asked, but does Team GB including Northern Ireland?

Yes. Team GB is a branding thing, its is actually the UK Olympic team.

I had some idea that NI athletes had basically freedom to choose between GB and Ireland in Olympic events.

Interesting that medal tables usually cite “Great Britain”.

FF43 said:

Carnyx said:

FF43 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?

Because lying to Parliament is an egregious breach, almost at the level of lying in court. Ministers who lie to parliament are I believe required by the Ministerial code to resign. Saying an MP lied to parliament is therefore a very serious accusation and is treated accordingly.

But if Johnson isn't going to resign for lying, which he clearly won't, the whole lying to parliament taboo is breached.

Thread on this topic.

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1418253113023246337

As with the difference between a forgery and a replica, lying surely implies an intent to deceive. The evidence to hand may only be that someone is saying something wrong.

That person can be

- misinformed of the facts
- honestly misinterpret them
- knowingly lie

So it would be unfair to say 'liar!' at once. Technically. But even so.

The most interesting category is those who don't know that they are lying, who actually believe themselves.

To some extent the Ministerial Code deals with that eventuality by requiring a minister who inadvertently mispeaks to go back to Parliament to correct the record immediately the mistake is discovered. If they haven't done so, and the incorrect statement still stands, then it should be counted as a lie, I think.

Floater said:

Just heard 32 year old friend of my nephew has died of covid.

His pregnant partner is in intensive care .... with Covid

They have 2 other children

Just get vaccinated FFS.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Floater said:

This is unusually blunt

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/politik-ausland/sebastian-kurz-exklusiv-ich-will-diese-kranke-ideologie-nicht-in-europa-77190376.bild.html

AUSTRIA'S CHANCELLOR BRIEFLY ON IMMIGRANT ISLAMISM
"I don't want this sick ideology in Europe"

Luckily no Austrian has ever been responsible for any kind of sick ideology.