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)
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.
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)
His observations about how demand outstripping supply drives decisions is spot on. A decade back I was in sales management for one of the big own label manufacturers who monopolised the Quiche sector (not beer, but same principles).
A decade back Quiche was having a renaissance, huge ranges developed for the big supermarkets. The more choice you add, the more you restrict capacity (as production lines need downtime to change from product A to product B ). A hot spell could create a demand surge that couldn't be met by production despite healthy quantities of the better selling varieties being laid down as freezer stocks in the winter.
So the only option was to maximise production by restriction of the range. You'd have to phone the retailer and tell them that effective immediately you were stopping production on half their range, but could cope with their increased orders on the remaining volumes lines. Punters had less choice but a higher chance of being able to buy something - less choice means more volume produced.
So yes, if the brewers have a capacity bottleneck - in their case transport - then expect some brands to disappear completely for a while. You either prioritise the high volume lines and short the choice lines, or you short all of them.
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.
I bet it’s what they would talk about though. Classic distraction therapy.
Just look at the Liberals from 1918 to 1931. They went through five changes of leader, never pausing to ask themselves whether the constant infighting might itself be a bit of an issue.
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.
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!”
Quite. And if thats inevitable at least make them have to put in a bit of creative effort for it.
Lutalo muhammad is really good again on BBC. Seems natural on the telly and explaining kicky kicky really well for somebody like me who knows nothing about it.
Got to laugh at the absurdity of Labour arguing that vaccine passports are “unworkable” whilst putting forward passports+tests as their policy for nightclubs.
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.
I’ve always found Andy Murray a breath of fresh air in interviews. He tends to be quite gracious in defeat and gives thoughtful technical answers about the performance and relative strengths of both he and his opponent.
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.
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)
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.
Looks like Labour is going up - but what is still in question is the Tory share
The general pattern seems to be that the Tory lead is now 4-9, rather than 9-13, with Labour up a bit as you say. The LibDem drop this month looks a bit of an oiutlier.
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.
First I've heard of it, so it has definitely worked.
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.
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?).
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.
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.
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.
I have issued myself with a white feather after reading that post.
That's been obvious from here (5000 miles away) since about early January, exactly how stupid are the Democrats (and yes it's not an easy fix but it needs to be done)
It's a hard problem to do anything about federally, as you have one or two senators who make up the senate majority (Manchin, Sinema), who simply won't vote to legislate voting rights.
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.
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.
I think actually the demographic profile isn't that different in the two countries, with the baby boomers the biggest generation, followed by millenials then Gen X. Don't US politicians tend to be older? Maybe because they have to have more of their own money, typically? Might give poor old Gen X a bit more time to make it.
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.
I have issued myself with a white feather after reading that post.
That post was from a cock. Aren’t their feathers brown or green?
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.
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)
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.
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".
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".
The post didn’t actually make that link, if you read it, it just talked about Tory voters defecting to the Lib Dems.
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
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)
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.
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.
I’ve always found Andy Murray a breath of fresh air in interviews. He tends to be quite gracious in defeat and gives thoughtful technical answers about the performance and relative strengths of both he and his opponent.
His “anyone but England” comment was completely misrepresented too. Herman and BBC bod were roundly taking the piss out of Scotland not qualifying in 2006 and his response was lighthearted in the same context. But the way the press reported it cost him support. I wouldn’t trust the media in all those circumstances
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?).
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.
Wonder how history might have changed had Heseltine actually brained someone...
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.
I have issued myself with a white feather after reading that post.
That post was from a cock. Aren’t their feathers brown or green?
From my membership of the RBST, I can tell you that some chook breeds are white (except for the bits that aren't, so to speak).
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?).
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.
Hasn't at least one other done it since then?
Aha. More than I thought.
In 1988, Ron Brown, Labour MP for Leith, picked up the mace during a debate on the so-called poll tax and threw it to the floor in protest at the government's proposals. The mace was damaged, and Brown was ordered to pay £1,500 towards the cost of repairs.[28]
In 2009, John McDonnell, Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in which Heathrow Airport is located, was suspended from the Commons after disrupting a debate on the proposed expansion of the airport. Following the Transport Secretary's announcement that the government had decided to approve a new runway without a vote in the Commons, McDonnell took the mace and dropped it on an empty bench. He was named by the Deputy Speaker and suspended from the Commons for five days for contempt of Parliament.[29]
In 2018, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, picked up the mace and walked towards the chamber's exit in protest at Prime Minister Theresa May's delaying of the meaningful vote on a Brexit deal in the Commons.[30] A servant took the mace from him and put it back before he could leave. He was ordered to withdraw from the house for the remainder of the sitting.[31] Russell-Moyle told the press "they stopped me before I got out of the chamber and I wasn't going to struggle with someone wearing a huge sword on their hip".[32]
In 2020, Drew Hendry SNP MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey attempted to leave with the mace after he received a warning from Deputy Speaker Rosie Winterton that he would be named for refusing to return to his seat following a debate on the UK Internal Market Bill. He then was suspended from the house for the day's sitting after he was prevented from leaving by the doorkeepers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_maces_in_the_United_Kingdom#Incidents_with_the_Mace_in_the_House_of_Commons
Plus a couple of SNP attention-seeking things. Didn't they all walk out en-bloc when Mt Blackford was chucked out for the day?
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?).
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.
Wonder how history might have changed had Heseltine actually brained someone...
I think he just tried to remove it, a la Macdonnell or Russell Moyle. Jim Prior took it off him and put it back.
It was Geoffrey Rippon who tried to brain somebody, specifically Dennis Canavan.
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...
Only 20 years ago you didn't really need an ID card as an 18-21 year old to do things like go to bars, pubs, etc, from my recollection. It's annoying how we've apparently succumbed to this very American way of doing things.
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)
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.
Not good puns, but at least you've still got your elf.
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)
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.
Not good puns, but at least you've still got your elf.
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
Can't report on this last week's anecdata as I am in pingatory.
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?).
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.
And that film is quite something too - looks like the Ba Game in Hawick on a quiet day.
(Totally OT but I found this prize for @JosiasJessop lurking next to it ... a Blondin still in service in England
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'
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.
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!
No, it doesn't make me uncomfortable. It makes me absolutely livid.
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
I've found a number of pubs in my local area where no-one is wearing masks, including staff, so I've decided not to wear one in those places. I would have carried on wearing one if most of the staff had been using them.
The LDs got 12% at the last election, and I don't really believe they would ever get less than that at a GE after a 4 or 6 week campaign at which they always get a lot more publicity than usual. So polls putting them on around 6% are probably not a very good guide to what would actually happen at an election.
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!
No, it doesn't make me uncomfortable. It makes me absolutely livid.
However, this is the world we live in.
Yet that's nothing new. Newspapers and more recently radio and TV stations have restricted access to their columns/airwaves to their favoured candidates, both absolutely and relatively.
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'
Feels patronising. My lived experience is that it's patronising. And I get the intro to people who aren't familiar with it which commentators would probably need to be aware of. But for us informed souls on PB?
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.
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.
The tae kwon do scoring system seems absolute mince. Reminds me a bit of the amateur boxing when the judges all had to hit the button at once to register a punch.
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".
Rubbish, Mr Thompson, with all respect. Chesham and Amersham was all about the fact that people did not like being taken for granted by the Conservatives. I do wish you would stop regurgitating all this Tory spin.
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.
Re: previous discussion about lack of gratitude,undermining of AstraZeneca etc.
All this is true, however I think it is probably a mistake to think that, even with that, AZ haven’t gained quite a lot out of the whole experience (what is their share price doing these days?). They’ve gone from a pharmaceutical company with zero presence in the global vaccines market to potentially a major player, with a huge distribution and manufacturing infrastructure created from scratch and paid for. That must be worth a hell of a lot for their future business.
It's the nostalgia cycle - we had the 90s nostalgia over the last 5 years or so.
Popular music has been utterly terrible since about 1998 in my opinion, with one or two exceptions like Crazy In Love by Beyonce. It amazes me that people can find anything to be nostalgic about from the noughties.
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....
Games are probably good to watch on the nostalgia front - retro style games have been big for years, but look at two relatively high profile revivals in recent years - Crash Bandicoot 4 and Streets of Rage 4.
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.
It's the nostalgia cycle - we had the 90s nostalgia over the last 5 years or so.
Popular music has been utterly terrible since about 1998 in my opinion, with one or two exceptions like Crazy In Love by Beyonce. It amazes me that people can find anything to be nostalgic about from the noughties.
It could be a brutal part of the nostalgia cycle indeed.
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.
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.
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.
XCOM 2 is one of my all time favourites - especially with long war mod
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.
Yep, idiots. I love that game, played over 500 hours of it and xcom 2. Though from what I gather it might still be a bit too modern adjusted for those after a genuine style revival. I do have xenonauts which may be closer.
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.
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.
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”.
I have corrected it, its is officially they compete as the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic" team.
As for which country to compete for, I would imagine given how interlinked families are across the island of Ireland, I wouldn't think it would be very hard to find a grannie who is Irish if you wanted to compete for them rather than Team GB.
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.
XCOM 2 is one of my all time favourites - especially with long war mod
I loved the first one, but as sequels go they did a great job doing lots of small things to address some of issues there were with the first, or additions which peopke wanted. Good work by the dev team, often they mess these things up.
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”.
Well, it's true to a certain extent. See Rory McIlroy's decision to represent Ireland (logic being that golf is an island of Ireland thing, a bit like rugby).
Mr. Floater, don't have the mod (just a console peasant) but it's fantastically good.
Mr. kle4, one thing that annoys me about the release of Baldur's Gate 3, though I do want to play it when it's released for the new consoles (if I ever get one) is that before it Larian were working on Divinity Original Sin meets XCOM, and that would've been bloody amazing.
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.
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.
Which is fair enough, and the embarrassment of doing that is probably a sufficient slap on the wrist to discourage careless ministers.
What it doesn't answer is the elephant in the room question. What happens when the responsibility for disciplining errant ministers falls on the PM and the PM refuses to do so and only partly because he is the most errant of the lot?
(All together now... "you can vote them out (snigger) in 2024 (chuckle) if you're prepared to have Starmer instead (fall about laughing)...")
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.
I'm sorry to hear that.
A friend is a nurse, working in ICU and had a similar story (I forget the exact ages, but a couple again) in the first wave. It brings it home when people younger than you find themselves in that position.
It's the nostalgia cycle - we had the 90s nostalgia over the last 5 years or so.
Popular music has been utterly terrible since about 1998 in my opinion, with one or two exceptions like Crazy In Love by Beyonce. It amazes me that people can find anything to be nostalgic about from the noughties.
Crazy in Love is a fantastic song. The video is something else. I would nominate Love is a Losing Game as the best song of the decade though.
Starmer really is a gigantic moron isn't he. His plan on vaccine passports is completely incoherent, it's not opposition and it's also not support. I really don't know where he stands on the idea. Is it that tests should be allowed instead of being double jabbed or does a negative test need to be had in addition to a double jab to have a valid entry for clubs and sports venues. I follow this stuff pretty closely and I can't make heads or tails of Labour's position, what hope does man on the street have?!
Comments
I dont know if hes maintained it, but I recall he surprised some with his take on BLM last year.
A decade back Quiche was having a renaissance, huge ranges developed for the big supermarkets. The more choice you add, the more you restrict capacity (as production lines need downtime to change from product A to product B ). A hot spell could create a demand surge that couldn't be met by production despite healthy quantities of the better selling varieties being laid down as freezer stocks in the winter.
So the only option was to maximise production by restriction of the range. You'd have to phone the retailer and tell them that effective immediately you were stopping production on half their range, but could cope with their increased orders on the remaining volumes lines. Punters had less choice but a higher chance of being able to buy something - less choice means more volume produced.
So yes, if the brewers have a capacity bottleneck - in their case transport - then expect some brands to disappear completely for a while. You either prioritise the high volume lines and short the choice lines, or you short all of them.
Just look at the Liberals from 1918 to 1931. They went through five changes of leader, never pausing to ask themselves whether the constant infighting might itself be a bit of an issue.
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.
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
Today, and every Monday, at 5pm, we will release our latest poll.
Will that lead have increased or decreased?
Follow us @redfieldwilton to be the first to find out.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1419583379645812736?s=20
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.
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.
As are antivaxxers like you.
FFS, have we really sunk so low?
That was the case at the cinema, though theyd ended the social distancing at the urinals
https://www.rbst.org.uk/pages/category/chicken-watchlist
And also this:
https://www.thehappychickencoop.com/silkie-chicken/
Aha. More than I thought.
In 1988, Ron Brown, Labour MP for Leith, picked up the mace during a debate on the so-called poll tax and threw it to the floor in protest at the government's proposals. The mace was damaged, and Brown was ordered to pay £1,500 towards the cost of repairs.[28]
In 2009, John McDonnell, Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in which Heathrow Airport is located, was suspended from the Commons after disrupting a debate on the proposed expansion of the airport. Following the Transport Secretary's announcement that the government had decided to approve a new runway without a vote in the Commons, McDonnell took the mace and dropped it on an empty bench. He was named by the Deputy Speaker and suspended from the Commons for five days for contempt of Parliament.[29]
In 2018, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, picked up the mace and walked towards the chamber's exit in protest at Prime Minister Theresa May's delaying of the meaningful vote on a Brexit deal in the Commons.[30] A servant took the mace from him and put it back before he could leave. He was ordered to withdraw from the house for the remainder of the sitting.[31] Russell-Moyle told the press "they stopped me before I got out of the chamber and I wasn't going to struggle with someone wearing a huge sword on their hip".[32]
In 2020, Drew Hendry SNP MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey attempted to leave with the mace after he received a warning from Deputy Speaker Rosie Winterton that he would be named for refusing to return to his seat following a debate on the UK Internal Market Bill. He then was suspended from the house for the day's sitting after he was prevented from leaving by the doorkeepers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_maces_in_the_United_Kingdom#Incidents_with_the_Mace_in_the_House_of_Commons
Plus a couple of SNP attention-seeking things. Didn't they all walk out en-bloc when Mt Blackford was chucked out for the day?
It was Geoffrey Rippon who tried to brain somebody, specifically Dennis Canavan.
https://www.theguardian.com/century/1970-1979/Story/0,,106906,00.html
Silver for the UK. We were ahead with 14 seconds to go!
Anyway, I must be off.
(Totally OT but I found this prize for @JosiasJessop lurking next to it ... a Blondin still in service in England
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RiYXI1Tfu4 )
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
However, this is the world we live in.
Ariarne Titmus’s coach after she beat Katie Ledecky in the 400m free
https://twitter.com/Ben13Porter/status/1419485558007545856?s=20
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.
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
When will they bring back Top Trumps....
All this is true, however I think it is probably a mistake to think that, even with that, AZ haven’t gained quite a lot out of the whole experience (what is their share price doing these days?). They’ve gone from a pharmaceutical company with zero presence in the global vaccines market to potentially a major player, with a huge distribution and manufacturing infrastructure created from scratch and paid for. That must be worth a hell of a lot for their future business.
His pregnant partner is in intensive care .... with Covid
They have 2 other children
Just get vaccinated FFS.
Reminds me of the goalies when their team scores - everyone else up the pitch having a cuddle and all they can do is punch the air by themselves
https://toptrumps.com/kids/
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.
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"
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419598258326884354
Next position change in 23 hours .....
Interesting that medal tables usually cite “Great Britain”.
As for which country to compete for, I would imagine given how interlinked families are across the island of Ireland, I wouldn't think it would be very hard to find a grannie who is Irish if you wanted to compete for them rather than Team GB.
Mr. kle4, one thing that annoys me about the release of Baldur's Gate 3, though I do want to play it when it's released for the new consoles (if I ever get one) is that before it Larian were working on Divinity Original Sin meets XCOM, and that would've been bloody amazing.
What it doesn't answer is the elephant in the room question. What happens when the responsibility for disciplining errant ministers falls on the PM and the PM refuses to do so and only partly because he is the most errant of the lot?
(All together now... "you can vote them out (snigger) in 2024 (chuckle) if you're prepared to have Starmer instead (fall about laughing)...")
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/alan-rusbridger-to-be-the-next-editor-of-prospect-magazine
A friend is a nurse, working in ICU and had a similar story (I forget the exact ages, but a couple again) in the first wave. It brings it home when people younger than you find themselves in that position.
I would nominate Love is a Losing Game as the best song of the decade though.