How the most ill-tempered PMQs in years is being reported – politicalbetting.com

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, in social care news...

One well informed source told the BBC, ‘This is a significant change and greatly reduces the generosity of the scheme to less well off pensioners who need care for a long time.’ The announcement is here https://t.co/k9YnjyeMTf - white paper due before Christmas


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1461008989999841281?t=58_m1-Eh0kw6NVeUnwMtkw&s=19

What's the best Conservative strategy here?

Leave Boris to take the pelting with dung that's about to happen? Even with a fresh PM, the next year or two will be tough.

Or remove him before he makes things even worse?

A high-level resignation could bring him down. Rishi? Liz? Over to you.

When Major took over he was able to drop the unpopular policy of the poll tax, and that made a big difference. Similarly when Johnson replaced May he was able to offer a way out of the Brexit morass that had trapped May.

Would a new leader be able to offer new solutions to the high cost of providing social care? What is the key weakness of the Johnson premiership that a new leader could fix?

If there is something a new leader can do differently and better then they should do so sooner rather than later. If all they offer is a different set of empty promises and lame excuses then the best they can hope for is to time a honeymoon to coincide with a GE.

There is a major difficulty here coming down the tracks. We are at recent record highs for taxation, and there is little spare capacity to tax more.

If you listen, for example, to Today on R4 for a few days you will collect a massive set of issues where everyone is saying, and no-one contradicting, that huge amounts more need to be spent on X, Y and Z. heading the list is NHS (bottomless pit), education, social care, social security, public sector pay, transport but there are lots of others.

The BBC, and others, give endless time to every extra spending cause without challenge or question. The other sides (how to raise it and who from, should we cut instead) get almost no attention, as at the same time no thought is ever given to spending less, spending better, or giving up public spending at all on A, B or C.

And of course the people directly or indirectly suggesting the massive increases never talk about the actuality of how it shall be found, how much and who from.

Squaring this circle is going to be hard both for Tories and for Labour. And that is while interest rates are keeping government debt cheap.

A better debate should be had, led by the BBC in which the discussion always looks at both sides of the equation.

Why is that though? Like, I genuinely don't understand it. Technology is continually improving. We should be able to do more with less. We generally continue to get richer as a country. Why is it that public services and infrastructure appear to be badly funded and yet the tax burden is reaching record highs?

Where is the money going?

Old people. That's literally it, we, as a nation, are shovelling ever more of it to those over 70.

RobD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

RobD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

I’ve had a bad day. Is there anything more pathetic than driving home with an empty cat basket from the vet?

Sorry to hear that.

Thank you.

With the big ball of yarn in the sky now. Did you just have the one?

Two. Not sure how long it will take her to realise her sister isn’t coming home.

Makes it even sadder. How old is the other one? Maybe time for a new kitten or two... (your cat lady future beckons)

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Geordie Greig gone at the Daily Mail.

Ted Verity of the Mail on Sunday comes in as replacement, possibly as a seven day-ish operation. Sounds as if it is not unrelated to a reshuffle of DMGT executives yesterday that put MailOnline staff in charge of media operation. It's Martin Clarke's world now...

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1461028047105179649

Wasn't/isn't he a pal of Ghislaine Maxwell's?
Though that doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.

Nigel_Foremain said:

DavidL said:

turbotubbs said:

RochdalePioneers said:

state_go_away said:

The only reason I am voting Tory at the moment is the great job they (Boris) is doing over covid . Most of Europe in the grip still of facemasks (useless ), curfews and rising cases in winter when Boris had the right idea to relax in summer and Autumn and gain herd immunity.Starmer is wrong on covid and has been for a while

Sorry but this argument is a little daft. If you want to keep Starmer out then you should be calling for Johnson's head. Remove Johnson, replace with someone like Sunak and you win the election. Don't and you may lose.

Spot on. Like it or hate it (or him, if you like) Johnson delivered a brexit, and has muddled through a pandemic. He cannot do the day to day job of being PM. The conservatives have an 80 seat majority, with new boundaries coming that favour them even more. Time to get shot of the liability and get someone in who does details, understands a bit more how normal people live, and isn't Johnson.

He is, and remains, their most effective Tory campaigner since Thatcher. Someone who can reach large stretches of the populace that other Tories simply cannot get near. I think the evidence that someone other than Boris would win the next election for the Tories is thin to non existent.

He had Corbyn on his side last election. OGH has demonstrated through polling evidence that voting against Corbyn was a massive motivator.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Geordie Greig gone at the Daily Mail.

Ted Verity of the Mail on Sunday comes in as replacement, possibly as a seven day-ish operation. Sounds as if it is not unrelated to a reshuffle of DMGT executives yesterday that put MailOnline staff in charge of media operation. It's Martin Clarke's world now...

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1461028047105179649

Wasn't/isn't he a pal of Ghislaine Maxwell's?
Though that doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.

Isn't that the piece that pointed out that people Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were granted bail but Maxwell wasn't and has been in solitary confinement for 500 days and counting?

On that narrow point I do have some sympathy for her.

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

Fascinating situation developing with respect to Boris. Now clear to everyone how unsuited he is to be PM in multiple ways. The ideal outcome for the Tories is he leaves next year. New leader new broom. Does as many popular things as can be done under financial constraints and if opinion polls not too bad goes for Autumn 2022 or Spring 2023 GE depending on timing of BJ exit. If opinion polls very bad can delay. Ideally (again from Tory viewpoint) he leaves on some face saving pretext without colossal scandal forcing him out that discredits entire cabinet. Wat could be trigger or pretext? I think there is a fair chance he will look for an exit soon.

Boris also looks very tired and unusually scruffy, these days. He sometimes looks as old as his dad.

I wonder if being a very old new father is getting to him. Being a new dad ages anyone by 10 years, if you get involved, and he is 58. He also has a 2nd baby due any day....

He must be shattered. The prospect of jacking it all in, putting his feet up, and writing his £20m memoirs must be appealing

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Geordie Greig gone at the Daily Mail.

Ted Verity of the Mail on Sunday comes in as replacement, possibly as a seven day-ish operation. Sounds as if it is not unrelated to a reshuffle of DMGT executives yesterday that put MailOnline staff in charge of media operation. It's Martin Clarke's world now...

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1461028047105179649

Wasn't/isn't he a pal of Ghislaine Maxwell's?
Though that doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.

Isn't that the piece that pointed out that people Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were granted bail but Maxwell wasn't and has been in solitary confinement for 500 days and counting?

On that narrow point I do have some sympathy for her.

Was there any justification for 500 days of solitary confinement? Sounds a bit OTT.

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Cyclefree said:

AlistairM said:

LostPassword said:

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
·
49m
BREAKING: The end of elite women's sport has just been announced.

Transgender athletes should not have to lower testosterone to compete, IOC says as it changes guidelines

So there's the trade off:

Keep your tackle and make it to the Olympic semi-final.

Get it chopped off and win a medal.

The International Athletics Federation still have their own testosterone rule that was stricter than the one dropped by the IOC, but I think the IOC are saying you'd need copious formal evidence to exclude even pre-op transgender athletes.

So in your scenario they might not even need to sacrifice the dangly bits.

It has been obvious that as soon as you let transgender male->female athletes compete against naturally born females that it would finish women's sport. They just will not be able to compete. It is a disgrace. There were 3 options and they have picked the worst. May as well just be done with it and no longer have any male/female categories.

The other two options in my view are:
1. No competition for transgender athletes (needs of the many outweighing needs of the few)
2. Creating new categories.

A female sportswoman who doped herself to have the amount of testosterone a transwoman sportsperson is permitted would be banned. But a trans athlete - a male claiming to be a woman - with that amount of testosterone in his body as a result of male puberty can legally compete. How can this possibly be fair? And isn't this discrimination against women?

It is a disgrace. Just as allowing men claiming to be women and convicted of sexual offences against women to be housed in womens' prisons is a disgrace. There was an interesting debate on this in the House of Lords yesterday where Ms Chakrabarti once again showed what an incoherent moron she is.

As I posted a few weeks ago, my goto question about the rights of trans wrt prison and other spaces is simple:

"What is to stop Wayne Couzens (convicted sex murderer) from claiming to self-identify as a woman and asking to be moved to a women's prison?"

Back in the real world, Wayne Cousins did not need to claim to self-identify as a woman in order to kidnap, rape and murder Sarah Everard.

You are missing the point. Of course he did not need to. But if he wanted to attack women again, he could now easily gain access to a woman's prison to do so.

As a number of men convicted of sexual offences against women have done.

Do you think he should be able to do so by the simple step of now claiming that he feels his gender to be that of a woman?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Cyclefree said:

AlistairM said:

LostPassword said:

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
·
49m
BREAKING: The end of elite women's sport has just been announced.

Transgender athletes should not have to lower testosterone to compete, IOC says as it changes guidelines

So there's the trade off:

Keep your tackle and make it to the Olympic semi-final.

Get it chopped off and win a medal.

The International Athletics Federation still have their own testosterone rule that was stricter than the one dropped by the IOC, but I think the IOC are saying you'd need copious formal evidence to exclude even pre-op transgender athletes.

So in your scenario they might not even need to sacrifice the dangly bits.

It has been obvious that as soon as you let transgender male->female athletes compete against naturally born females that it would finish women's sport. They just will not be able to compete. It is a disgrace. There were 3 options and they have picked the worst. May as well just be done with it and no longer have any male/female categories.

The other two options in my view are:
1. No competition for transgender athletes (needs of the many outweighing needs of the few)
2. Creating new categories.

A female sportswoman who doped herself to have the amount of testosterone a transwoman sportsperson is permitted would be banned. But a trans athlete - a male claiming to be a woman - with that amount of testosterone in his body as a result of male puberty can legally compete. How can this possibly be fair? And isn't this discrimination against women?

It is a disgrace. Just as allowing men claiming to be women and convicted of sexual offences against women to be housed in womens' prisons is a disgrace. There was an interesting debate on this in the House of Lords yesterday where Ms Chakrabarti once again showed what an incoherent moron she is.

As I posted a few weeks ago, my goto question about the rights of trans wrt prison and other spaces is simple:

"What is to stop Wayne Couzens (convicted sex murderer) from claiming to self-identify as a woman and asking to be moved to a women's prison?"

Back in the real world, Wayne Cousins did not need to claim to self-identify as a woman in order to kidnap, rape and murder Sarah Everard.

You are missing the point. Of course he did not need to. But if he wanted to attack women again, he could now easily gain access to a woman's prison to do so.

As a number of men convicted of sexual offences against women have done.

Do you think he should be able to do so by the simple step of now claiming that he feels his gender to be that of a woman?

No, I do not. But nor do I think cis or trans women are helped by extreme hypothetical situations. Both are susceptible to assault, rape and murder. The rates of detection are low, and of conviction miniscule. That's the scandal. As an aside, assault in women's prisons, while less than in men's prisons, is not unknown. That ought to be another scandal but we prefer to lock them up and look the other way.

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

Fascinating situation developing with respect to Boris. Now clear to everyone how unsuited he is to be PM in multiple ways. The ideal outcome for the Tories is he leaves next year. New leader new broom. Does as many popular things as can be done under financial constraints and if opinion polls not too bad goes for Autumn 2022 or Spring 2023 GE depending on timing of BJ exit. If opinion polls very bad can delay. Ideally (again from Tory viewpoint) he leaves on some face saving pretext without colossal scandal forcing him out that discredits entire cabinet. Wat could be trigger or pretext? I think there is a fair chance he will look for an exit soon.

Boris also looks very tired and unusually scruffy, these days. He sometimes looks as old as his dad.

I wonder if being a very old new father is getting to him. Being a new dad ages anyone by 10 years, if you get involved, and he is 58. He also has a 2nd baby due any day....

He must be shattered. The prospect of jacking it all in, putting his feet up, and writing his £20m memoirs must be appealing

And whilst it's an ignoble calculation, that value is probably beginning to drift down.

Had he gone last summer, Brexit done and Covid wave 1 squashed, he had a convincing story that he was the National Hero he so blatantly and desperately wants to be.

That's already a bit more dented and tarnished, and it's going to get worse from here.

And this time, there's no vaccine triumph coming over the hill.

LostPassword said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Cyclefree said:

AlistairM said:

LostPassword said:

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
·
49m
BREAKING: The end of elite women's sport has just been announced.

Transgender athletes should not have to lower testosterone to compete, IOC says as it changes guidelines

So there's the trade off:

Keep your tackle and make it to the Olympic semi-final.

Get it chopped off and win a medal.

The International Athletics Federation still have their own testosterone rule that was stricter than the one dropped by the IOC, but I think the IOC are saying you'd need copious formal evidence to exclude even pre-op transgender athletes.

So in your scenario they might not even need to sacrifice the dangly bits.

It has been obvious that as soon as you let transgender male->female athletes compete against naturally born females that it would finish women's sport. They just will not be able to compete. It is a disgrace. There were 3 options and they have picked the worst. May as well just be done with it and no longer have any male/female categories.

The other two options in my view are:
1. No competition for transgender athletes (needs of the many outweighing needs of the few)
2. Creating new categories.

A female sportswoman who doped herself to have the amount of testosterone a transwoman sportsperson is permitted would be banned. But a trans athlete - a male claiming to be a woman - with that amount of testosterone in his body as a result of male puberty can legally compete. How can this possibly be fair? And isn't this discrimination against women?

It is a disgrace. Just as allowing men claiming to be women and convicted of sexual offences against women to be housed in womens' prisons is a disgrace. There was an interesting debate on this in the House of Lords yesterday where Ms Chakrabarti once again showed what an incoherent moron she is.

As I posted a few weeks ago, my goto question about the rights of trans wrt prison and other spaces is simple:

"What is to stop Wayne Couzens (convicted sex murderer) from claiming to self-identify as a woman and asking to be moved to a women's prison?"

Back in the real world, Wayne Cousins did not need to claim to self-identify as a woman in order to kidnap, rape and murder Sarah Everard.

You are missing the point. Of course he did not need to. But if he wanted to attack women again, he could now easily gain access to a woman's prison to do so.

As a number of men convicted of sexual offences against women have done.

Do you think he should be able to do so by the simple step of now claiming that he feels his gender to be that of a woman?

No, I do not. But nor do I think cis or trans women are helped by extreme hypothetical situations. Both are susceptible to assault, rape and murder. The rates of detection are low, and of conviction miniscule. That's the scandal. As an aside, assault in women's prisons, while less than in men's prisons, is not unknown. That ought to be another scandal but we prefer to lock them up and look the other way.

It's not a hypothetical though. Men have attacked women in women's jails after self-identifying as female and being moved to women's prisons.

WhisperingOracle said:

The timing of this Mail story really is fascinating.

"Geordie Greig has been ousted as editor of the Daily Mail after just three years in the job, in a move that could change the relationship between the right-wing newspaper and Downing Street. One individual with knowledge of Greig’s departure said it was a “power grab by Martin Clarke”, in reference to the powerful editor of MailOnline."

Clarke was a trainee of Dacre's, and shares the same swear-heavy style. Verity, the new editor, is also a Dacre protege.

Meanwhile Grieg has been the completely atypical Mail editor who's been the centre of the print media's anti-sleaze coverage over the last few weeks. Dacre may be fighting back through his proteges, to try and rescue the Tories.

Gardenwalker said:

It is very nice to see hardened PB Tories finally concede how very shit Boris is.

There is more joy in heaven etc…

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

NorthofStoke said:

Fascinating situation developing with respect to Boris. Now clear to everyone how unsuited he is to be PM in multiple ways. The ideal outcome for the Tories is he leaves next year. New leader new broom. Does as many popular things as can be done under financial constraints and if opinion polls not too bad goes for Autumn 2022 or Spring 2023 GE depending on timing of BJ exit. If opinion polls very bad can delay. Ideally (again from Tory viewpoint) he leaves on some face saving pretext without colossal scandal forcing him out that discredits entire cabinet. Wat could be trigger or pretext? I think there is a fair chance he will look for an exit soon.

Boris also looks very tired and unusually scruffy, these days. He sometimes looks as old as his dad.

I wonder if being a very old new father is getting to him. Being a new dad ages anyone by 10 years, if you get involved, and he is 58. He also has a 2nd baby due any day....

He must be shattered. The prospect of jacking it all in, putting his feet up, and writing his £20m memoirs must be appealing

And whilst it's an ignoble calculation, that value is probably beginning to drift down.

Had he gone last summer, Brexit done and Covid wave 1 squashed, he had a convincing story that he was the National Hero he so blatantly and desperately wants to be.

That's already a bit more dented and tarnished, and it's going to get worse from here.

And this time, there's no vaccine triumph coming over the hill.

Scott_xP said:

Sound like the Tories are whipping against Labour's motion tonight on tightening MPs' code of conduct. Usually opposition debates like this would be loosely whipped or not at all.

One government insider said, "the political mood is not to give the opposition what they want"

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1461031689044566023

Andy_JS said:

NerysHughes said:

IanB2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TimS said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, in social care news...

One well informed source told the BBC, ‘This is a significant change and greatly reduces the generosity of the scheme to less well off pensioners who need care for a long time.’ The announcement is here https://t.co/k9YnjyeMTf - white paper due before Christmas


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1461008989999841281?t=58_m1-Eh0kw6NVeUnwMtkw&s=19

What's the best Conservative strategy here?

Leave Boris to take the pelting with dung that's about to happen? Even with a fresh PM, the next year or two will be tough.

Or remove him before he makes things even worse?

A high-level resignation could bring him down. Rishi? Liz? Over to you.

Were I Rishi / Liz my plan would be to get Boris through to May / June next year and replace him after what is likely to be a disastrous set of local elections following April's long announced so mostly forgotten tax rises.

This is the thing that infuriates me most about the Tories. They're so good at timing their leadership changes. It doesn't matter how disastrous the previous leader was, they go through such a Dr Who style transformation every time that the electorate seem immediately to treat them as a new party. Same will happen for Rishi.

I agree that turning out Boris now would be a bit early. Too long for things to go wrong before the next election.

While Labour still gets blamed for the Winter of Discontent.

One can only hope it takes the Tories a generation to live down the shame for what they have imposed on our poor country these last few years.

If the UK is such a bad country why do people risk their lives everyday to leave France to come here?

How dare you ask such a sensible question.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

WhisperingOracle said:

The timing of this Mail story really is fascinating.

"Geordie Greig has been ousted as editor of the Daily Mail after just three years in the job, in a move that could change the relationship between the right-wing newspaper and Downing Street. One individual with knowledge of Greig’s departure said it was a “power grab by Martin Clarke”, in reference to the powerful editor of MailOnline."

Clarke was a trainee of Dacre's, and shares the same swear-heavy style. Verity, the new editor, is also a Dacre protege.

Meanwhile Grieg has been the completely atypical Mail editor who's been the centre of the print media's anti-sleaze coverage in the last few weeks. Dacre may be fighting a rearguard action through his proteges to try and save the Tories from real crisis.

And then the Tories repay Dacre by putting him in charge of media regulation, even though he has previously found to be unsuitable for the role. Just remember that "this is not a corrupt country."

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, in social care news...

One well informed source told the BBC, ‘This is a significant change and greatly reduces the generosity of the scheme to less well off pensioners who need care for a long time.’ The announcement is here https://t.co/k9YnjyeMTf - white paper due before Christmas


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1461008989999841281?t=58_m1-Eh0kw6NVeUnwMtkw&s=19

What's the best Conservative strategy here?

Leave Boris to take the pelting with dung that's about to happen? Even with a fresh PM, the next year or two will be tough.

Or remove him before he makes things even worse?

A high-level resignation could bring him down. Rishi? Liz? Over to you.

When Major took over he was able to drop the unpopular policy of the poll tax, and that made a big difference. Similarly when Johnson replaced May he was able to offer a way out of the Brexit morass that had trapped May.

Would a new leader be able to offer new solutions to the high cost of providing social care? What is the key weakness of the Johnson premiership that a new leader could fix?

If there is something a new leader can do differently and better then they should do so sooner rather than later. If all they offer is a different set of empty promises and lame excuses then the best they can hope for is to time a honeymoon to coincide with a GE.

There is a major difficulty here coming down the tracks. We are at recent record highs for taxation, and there is little spare capacity to tax more.

If you listen, for example, to Today on R4 for a few days you will collect a massive set of issues where everyone is saying, and no-one contradicting, that huge amounts more need to be spent on X, Y and Z. heading the list is NHS (bottomless pit), education, social care, social security, public sector pay, transport but there are lots of others.

The BBC, and others, give endless time to every extra spending cause without challenge or question. The other sides (how to raise it and who from, should we cut instead) get almost no attention, as at the same time no thought is ever given to spending less, spending better, or giving up public spending at all on A, B or C.

And of course the people directly or indirectly suggesting the massive increases never talk about the actuality of how it shall be found, how much and who from.

Squaring this circle is going to be hard both for Tories and for Labour. And that is while interest rates are keeping government debt cheap.

A better debate should be had, led by the BBC in which the discussion always looks at both sides of the equation.

Why is that though? Like, I genuinely don't understand it. Technology is continually improving. We should be able to do more with less. We generally continue to get richer as a country. Why is it that public services and infrastructure appear to be badly funded and yet the tax burden is reaching record highs?

Where is the money going?

Old people. That's literally it, we, as a nation, are shovelling ever more of it to those over 70.

I often think I'm in generation fucked. We're spending ever increasing amounts to provide our boomer parents with the best ever retirement, but by the time we're able to retire in our mid-70s many of us are likely to be spending all our pension on our rent so that the rentier class can continue to live it up.

Andy_JS said:

I've changed my mind about Priti Patel. She's useless.

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

It is very nice to see hardened PB Tories finally concede how very shit Boris is.

There is more joy in heaven etc…

But they keep saying how great he is at getting elected. So there's still some jam in the sandwich, it seems.

Jam you say? Looks a bit like Nutella to me..

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

RobD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

RobD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

I’ve had a bad day. Is there anything more pathetic than driving home with an empty cat basket from the vet?

Sorry to hear that.

Thank you.

With the big ball of yarn in the sky now. Did you just have the one?

Two. Not sure how long it will take her to realise her sister isn’t coming home.

Makes it even sadder. How old is the other one? Maybe time for a new kitten or two... (your cat lady future beckons)

With a new kitten I would be perpetually worried they would get run over. Not that that was how this one died: something she ate according to the vet.

Sad to hear. Losing pets at such an age is tragic. Cats often prefer to be solo though as they get older, even when sibs. Mine prefers the company of the dog as per my profile pic, eyeing up a squirrel...

Gardenwalker said:

malcolmg said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, in social care news...

One well informed source told the BBC, ‘This is a significant change and greatly reduces the generosity of the scheme to less well off pensioners who need care for a long time.’ The announcement is here https://t.co/k9YnjyeMTf - white paper due before Christmas


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1461008989999841281?t=58_m1-Eh0kw6NVeUnwMtkw&s=19

What's the best Conservative strategy here?

Leave Boris to take the pelting with dung that's about to happen? Even with a fresh PM, the next year or two will be tough.

Or remove him before he makes things even worse?

A high-level resignation could bring him down. Rishi? Liz? Over to you.

When Major took over he was able to drop the unpopular policy of the poll tax, and that made a big difference. Similarly when Johnson replaced May he was able to offer a way out of the Brexit morass that had trapped May.

Would a new leader be able to offer new solutions to the high cost of providing social care? What is the key weakness of the Johnson premiership that a new leader could fix?

If there is something a new leader can do differently and better then they should do so sooner rather than later. If all they offer is a different set of empty promises and lame excuses then the best they can hope for is to time a honeymoon to coincide with a GE.

There is a major difficulty here coming down the tracks. We are at recent record highs for taxation, and there is little spare capacity to tax more.

If you listen, for example, to Today on R4 for a few days you will collect a massive set of issues where everyone is saying, and no-one contradicting, that huge amounts more need to be spent on X, Y and Z. heading the list is NHS (bottomless pit), education, social care, social security, public sector pay, transport but there are lots of others.

The BBC, and others, give endless time to every extra spending cause without challenge or question. The other sides (how to raise it and who from, should we cut instead) get almost no attention, as at the same time no thought is ever given to spending less, spending better, or giving up public spending at all on A, B or C.

And of course the people directly or indirectly suggesting the massive increases never talk about the actuality of how it shall be found, how much and who from.

Squaring this circle is going to be hard both for Tories and for Labour. And that is while interest rates are keeping government debt cheap.

A better debate should be had, led by the BBC in which the discussion always looks at both sides of the equation.

Why is that though? Like, I genuinely don't understand it. Technology is continually improving. We should be able to do more with less. We generally continue to get richer as a country. Why is it that public services and infrastructure appear to be badly funded and yet the tax burden is reaching record highs?

Where is the money going?

Old people. That's literally it, we, as a nation, are shovelling ever more of it to those over 70.

I often think I'm in generation fucked. We're spending ever increasing amounts to provide our boomer parents with the best ever retirement, but by the time we're able to retire in our mid-70s many of us are likely to be spending all our pension on our rent so that the rentier class can continue to live it up.

You halfwit , no-one has ever provided me with a penny , rather I have paid a fortune to send yahoos to university to piss their lives up a wall and then whinge when they have to work in menial jobs, where I have to pay again to keep them in grandeur. Get out and earn enough to keep yourself loser.

OK, boomer.

Carnyx said:

boulay said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

It is very nice to see hardened PB Tories finally concede how very shit Boris is.

There is more joy in heaven etc…

But they keep saying how great he is at getting elected. So there's still some jam in the sandwich, it seems.

Maybe the Tory party could take a leaf out of the American Fottball playbook and use Boris as a special team. They bring him on/back as PM just before elections etc then sub him off for someone else who can actually do the harder long term graft then bring him in again every quarter/four years…..

My cynical side thinks maybe Boris and Carrie are holding on so their upcoming child is born as the child of the PM for extra points on its future CV….. cannot think if any rational reason (I exclude his delusions of his own greatness) for hanging on, getting shit from people, lots of hassle, small flat to live in and crap salary when he can start living it up if he quits…..

He does have a free country mansion. Edit: not sure how the running costs work.

Gardenwalker said:

Boris late 2021 reminds me of May late 2017 and Brown late 2007.

That suggests he’s still got a couple of years in him.

IshmaelZ said:

malcolmg said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, in social care news...

One well informed source told the BBC, ‘This is a significant change and greatly reduces the generosity of the scheme to less well off pensioners who need care for a long time.’ The announcement is here https://t.co/k9YnjyeMTf - white paper due before Christmas


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1461008989999841281?t=58_m1-Eh0kw6NVeUnwMtkw&s=19

What's the best Conservative strategy here?

Leave Boris to take the pelting with dung that's about to happen? Even with a fresh PM, the next year or two will be tough.

Or remove him before he makes things even worse?

A high-level resignation could bring him down. Rishi? Liz? Over to you.

When Major took over he was able to drop the unpopular policy of the poll tax, and that made a big difference. Similarly when Johnson replaced May he was able to offer a way out of the Brexit morass that had trapped May.

Would a new leader be able to offer new solutions to the high cost of providing social care? What is the key weakness of the Johnson premiership that a new leader could fix?

If there is something a new leader can do differently and better then they should do so sooner rather than later. If all they offer is a different set of empty promises and lame excuses then the best they can hope for is to time a honeymoon to coincide with a GE.

There is a major difficulty here coming down the tracks. We are at recent record highs for taxation, and there is little spare capacity to tax more.

If you listen, for example, to Today on R4 for a few days you will collect a massive set of issues where everyone is saying, and no-one contradicting, that huge amounts more need to be spent on X, Y and Z. heading the list is NHS (bottomless pit), education, social care, social security, public sector pay, transport but there are lots of others.

The BBC, and others, give endless time to every extra spending cause without challenge or question. The other sides (how to raise it and who from, should we cut instead) get almost no attention, as at the same time no thought is ever given to spending less, spending better, or giving up public spending at all on A, B or C.

And of course the people directly or indirectly suggesting the massive increases never talk about the actuality of how it shall be found, how much and who from.

Squaring this circle is going to be hard both for Tories and for Labour. And that is while interest rates are keeping government debt cheap.

A better debate should be had, led by the BBC in which the discussion always looks at both sides of the equation.

Why is that though? Like, I genuinely don't understand it. Technology is continually improving. We should be able to do more with less. We generally continue to get richer as a country. Why is it that public services and infrastructure appear to be badly funded and yet the tax burden is reaching record highs?

Where is the money going?

Old people. That's literally it, we, as a nation, are shovelling ever more of it to those over 70.

I often think I'm in generation fucked. We're spending ever increasing amounts to provide our boomer parents with the best ever retirement, but by the time we're able to retire in our mid-70s many of us are likely to be spending all our pension on our rent so that the rentier class can continue to live it up.

You halfwit , no-one has ever provided me with a penny , rather I have paid a fortune to send yahoos to university to piss their lives up a wall and then whinge when they have to work in menial jobs, where I have to pay again to keep them in grandeur. Get out and earn enough to keep yourself loser.

Were you paying tax in 1979-83, malc?

If so, thanks.

Carnyx said:

boulay said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

It is very nice to see hardened PB Tories finally concede how very shit Boris is.

There is more joy in heaven etc…

But they keep saying how great he is at getting elected. So there's still some jam in the sandwich, it seems.

Maybe the Tory party could take a leaf out of the American Fottball playbook and use Boris as a special team. They bring him on/back as PM just before elections etc then sub him off for someone else who can actually do the harder long term graft then bring him in again every quarter/four years…..

My cynical side thinks maybe Boris and Carrie are holding on so their upcoming child is born as the child of the PM for extra points on its future CV….. cannot think if any rational reason (I exclude his delusions of his own greatness) for hanging on, getting shit from people, lots of hassle, small flat to live in and crap salary when he can start living it up if he quits…..

He does have a free country mansion. Edit: not sure how the running costs work.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

WhisperingOracle said:

The timing of this Mail story really is fascinating.

"Geordie Greig has been ousted as editor of the Daily Mail after just three years in the job, in a move that could change the relationship between the right-wing newspaper and Downing Street. One individual with knowledge of Greig’s departure said it was a “power grab by Martin Clarke”, in reference to the powerful editor of MailOnline."

Clarke was a trainee of Dacre's, and shares the same swear-heavy style. Verity, the new editor, is also a Dacre protege.

Meanwhile Grieg has been the completely atypical Mail editor who's been the centre of the print media's anti-sleaze coverage in the last few weeks. Dacre may be fighting a rearguard action through his proteges to try and save the Tories from real crisis.

And then the Tories repay Dacre by putting him in charge of media regulation, even though he has previously found to be unsuitable for the role. Just remember that "this is not a corrupt country."

Omnium said:

Chris said:

Omnium said:

He may be daft as a brush, and may look like one too, but he's not this daft.

I've generally worked on the assumption that although he's stupid, he can't be quite as stupid as he seems.

But do we really know that?

Yes of course we do. He's a clever man.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Boris late 2021 reminds me of May late 2017 and Brown late 2007.

That suggests he’s still got a couple of years in him.

The morning after GE2019 I struck a bet with someone that Boris Johnson's tenure as PM would be shorter than David Cameron's tenure as PM.

In recent days the person I struck the bet with is for the first time thinking his bet will be a loser.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

RobD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

RobD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

I’ve had a bad day. Is there anything more pathetic than driving home with an empty cat basket from the vet?

Sorry to hear that.

Thank you.

With the big ball of yarn in the sky now. Did you just have the one?

Two. Not sure how long it will take her to realise her sister isn’t coming home.

Makes it even sadder. How old is the other one? Maybe time for a new kitten or two... (your cat lady future beckons)

With a new kitten I would be perpetually worried they would get run over. Not that that was how this one died: something she ate according to the vet.

Sad to hear. Losing pets at such an age is tragic. Cats often prefer to be solo though as they get older, even when sibs. Mine prefers the company of the dog as per my profile pic, eyeing up a squirrel...

The cat that died was not a kitten, in fact far from it. That is part of the reason I’m finding this hard: she was part of my life.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

RobD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

RobD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

I’ve had a bad day. Is there anything more pathetic than driving home with an empty cat basket from the vet?

Sorry to hear that.

Thank you.

With the big ball of yarn in the sky now. Did you just have the one?

Two. Not sure how long it will take her to realise her sister isn’t coming home.

Makes it even sadder. How old is the other one? Maybe time for a new kitten or two... (your cat lady future beckons)

With a new kitten I would be perpetually worried they would get run over. Not that that was how this one died: something she ate according to the vet.

Sad to hear. Losing pets at such an age is tragic. Cats often prefer to be solo though as they get older, even when sibs. Mine prefers the company of the dog as per my profile pic, eyeing up a squirrel...

The cat that died was not a kitten, in fact far from it. That is part of the reason I’m finding this hard: she was part of my life.

I hope this gives you some comfort, hopefully as a Fysics_Teacher at least.

boulay said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

It is very nice to see hardened PB Tories finally concede how very shit Boris is.

There is more joy in heaven etc…

Um, which ones?

HYUFD is pretty much the only PB tory still standing, and I don't think we have heard from him today. Who, specifically, has altered their position?

As I posted earlier Boris is still the best Tory leader to hold the Redwall and without the Redwall then there is no Tory majority as many of the Remain areas Cameron won in 2015 are solid Labour or LD post Brexit

Thing is, we don’t know if Boris really is the best Tory leader to hold the Red Wall as any potential replacements haven’t been tested. Polling at present might say he is but then we don’t know if, for example, Truss or Rishi once PM and truly in the spotlight and leading things might suddenly strike a chord with the red wall that’s better, or of course worse.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Government wins vote 297 - 0 (yes zero)

WhisperingOracle said:

The timing of this Mail story really is fascinating.

"Geordie Greig has been ousted as editor of the Daily Mail after just three years in the job, in a move that could change the relationship between the right-wing newspaper and Downing Street. One individual with knowledge of Greig’s departure said it was a “power grab by Martin Clarke”, in reference to the powerful editor of MailOnline."

Clarke was a trainee of Dacre's, and shares the same swear-heavy style. Verity, the new editor, is also a Dacre protege.

Meanwhile Grieg has been the atypical Mail editor at the absolute centre of the print media's anti-sleaze coverage over the last few weeks. Dacre may be fighting a rearguard action through his proteges, to try and save the Tories from real crisis.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Geordie Greig gone at the Daily Mail.

Ted Verity of the Mail on Sunday comes in as replacement, possibly as a seven day-ish operation. Sounds as if it is not unrelated to a reshuffle of DMGT executives yesterday that put MailOnline staff in charge of media operation. It's Martin Clarke's world now...

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1461028047105179649

Wasn't/isn't he a pal of Ghislaine Maxwell's?
Though that doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.

Isn't that the piece that pointed out that people Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were granted bail but Maxwell wasn't and has been in solitary confinement for 500 days and counting?

On that narrow point I do have some sympathy for her.

Was there any justification for 500 days of solitary confinement? Sounds a bit OTT.

The authorities won't explain why.

Maxwell, 59, has spent 500 days in solitary confinement, the family declared on Twitter at the weekend, saying this contravened the “Nelson Mandela rules” adopted by the UN general assembly in 2015. Her brother Ian, 65, who has led the effort, has said he plans to bring her case before the United Nations himself.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/after-16-months-in-solitary-ghislaine-maxwell-prepares-for-her-day-in-court-x268xmtb8

Isn't it because she's considered a flight risk with a French passport?

That's irrelevant to the point being made.

Sure she's a flight risk, but there's no obvious reason to keep her in solitary confinement for 500 days and counting, they could keep her in genpop.

As has been noted, this is in violation of UN agreements.

A list of countries that keep people in solitary confinement for such long periods, before charge or conviction, is not a list you really want to be on.

Mexicanpete said:

WhisperingOracle said:

The timing of this Mail story really is fascinating.

"Geordie Greig has been ousted as editor of the Daily Mail after just three years in the job, in a move that could change the relationship between the right-wing newspaper and Downing Street. One individual with knowledge of Greig’s departure said it was a “power grab by Martin Clarke”, in reference to the powerful editor of MailOnline."

Clarke was a trainee of Dacre's, and shares the same swear-heavy style. Verity, the new editor, is also a Dacre protege.

Meanwhile Grieg has been the atypical Mail editor at the absolute centre of the print media's anti-sleaze coverage over the last few weeks. Dacre may be fighting a rearguard action through his proteges, to try and save the Tories from real crisis.

If Dacre can pull that off for Johnson, he more than deserves the Ofcom gig.

rcs1000 said:

malcolmg said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, in social care news...

One well informed source told the BBC, ‘This is a significant change and greatly reduces the generosity of the scheme to less well off pensioners who need care for a long time.’ The announcement is here https://t.co/k9YnjyeMTf - white paper due before Christmas


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1461008989999841281?t=58_m1-Eh0kw6NVeUnwMtkw&s=19

What's the best Conservative strategy here?

Leave Boris to take the pelting with dung that's about to happen? Even with a fresh PM, the next year or two will be tough.

Or remove him before he makes things even worse?

A high-level resignation could bring him down. Rishi? Liz? Over to you.

When Major took over he was able to drop the unpopular policy of the poll tax, and that made a big difference. Similarly when Johnson replaced May he was able to offer a way out of the Brexit morass that had trapped May.

Would a new leader be able to offer new solutions to the high cost of providing social care? What is the key weakness of the Johnson premiership that a new leader could fix?

If there is something a new leader can do differently and better then they should do so sooner rather than later. If all they offer is a different set of empty promises and lame excuses then the best they can hope for is to time a honeymoon to coincide with a GE.

There is a major difficulty here coming down the tracks. We are at recent record highs for taxation, and there is little spare capacity to tax more.

If you listen, for example, to Today on R4 for a few days you will collect a massive set of issues where everyone is saying, and no-one contradicting, that huge amounts more need to be spent on X, Y and Z. heading the list is NHS (bottomless pit), education, social care, social security, public sector pay, transport but there are lots of others.

The BBC, and others, give endless time to every extra spending cause without challenge or question. The other sides (how to raise it and who from, should we cut instead) get almost no attention, as at the same time no thought is ever given to spending less, spending better, or giving up public spending at all on A, B or C.

And of course the people directly or indirectly suggesting the massive increases never talk about the actuality of how it shall be found, how much and who from.

Squaring this circle is going to be hard both for Tories and for Labour. And that is while interest rates are keeping government debt cheap.

A better debate should be had, led by the BBC in which the discussion always looks at both sides of the equation.

Why is that though? Like, I genuinely don't understand it. Technology is continually improving. We should be able to do more with less. We generally continue to get richer as a country. Why is it that public services and infrastructure appear to be badly funded and yet the tax burden is reaching record highs?

Where is the money going?

Old people. That's literally it, we, as a nation, are shovelling ever more of it to those over 70.

I often think I'm in generation fucked. We're spending ever increasing amounts to provide our boomer parents with the best ever retirement, but by the time we're able to retire in our mid-70s many of us are likely to be spending all our pension on our rent so that the rentier class can continue to live it up.

You halfwit , no-one has ever provided me with a penny , rather I have paid a fortune to send yahoos to university to piss their lives up a wall and then whinge when they have to work in menial jobs, where I have to pay again to keep them in grandeur. Get out and earn enough to keep yourself loser.

Do your children know you think of them in this way?

kle4 said:

boulay said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

It is very nice to see hardened PB Tories finally concede how very shit Boris is.

There is more joy in heaven etc…

Um, which ones?

HYUFD is pretty much the only PB tory still standing, and I don't think we have heard from him today. Who, specifically, has altered their position?

As I posted earlier Boris is still the best Tory leader to hold the Redwall and without the Redwall then there is no Tory majority as many of the Remain areas Cameron won in 2015 are solid Labour or LD post Brexit

Thing is, we don’t know if Boris really is the best Tory leader to hold the Red Wall as any potential replacements haven’t been tested. Polling at present might say he is but then we don’t know if, for example, Truss or Rishi once PM and truly in the spotlight and leading things might suddenly strike a chord with the red wall that’s better, or of course worse.

Yes, such polling is useful only up to a point. It's hard to say how someone will do in the top job, when they may be shown as out of their depth or reveal sides never before seen.

Omnium said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Government wins vote 297 - 0 (yes zero)

Where are the other 353?

Apparently the opponents did not want to be seen voting against the government proposals

Opposing this government? Why would you!

(If only I could say that)

JohnLilburne said:

More economic illiteracy from Channel 4 this time "in October the cost of living jumped to its highest level in nearly a decade". Er no, just to its highest level since last month, as it almost always does.

malcolmg said:

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, in social care news...

One well informed source told the BBC, ‘This is a significant change and greatly reduces the generosity of the scheme to less well off pensioners who need care for a long time.’ The announcement is here https://t.co/k9YnjyeMTf - white paper due before Christmas


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1461008989999841281?t=58_m1-Eh0kw6NVeUnwMtkw&s=19

What's the best Conservative strategy here?

Leave Boris to take the pelting with dung that's about to happen? Even with a fresh PM, the next year or two will be tough.

Or remove him before he makes things even worse?

A high-level resignation could bring him down. Rishi? Liz? Over to you.

When Major took over he was able to drop the unpopular policy of the poll tax, and that made a big difference. Similarly when Johnson replaced May he was able to offer a way out of the Brexit morass that had trapped May.

Would a new leader be able to offer new solutions to the high cost of providing social care? What is the key weakness of the Johnson premiership that a new leader could fix?

If there is something a new leader can do differently and better then they should do so sooner rather than later. If all they offer is a different set of empty promises and lame excuses then the best they can hope for is to time a honeymoon to coincide with a GE.

There is a major difficulty here coming down the tracks. We are at recent record highs for taxation, and there is little spare capacity to tax more.

If you listen, for example, to Today on R4 for a few days you will collect a massive set of issues where everyone is saying, and no-one contradicting, that huge amounts more need to be spent on X, Y and Z. heading the list is NHS (bottomless pit), education, social care, social security, public sector pay, transport but there are lots of others.

The BBC, and others, give endless time to every extra spending cause without challenge or question. The other sides (how to raise it and who from, should we cut instead) get almost no attention, as at the same time no thought is ever given to spending less, spending better, or giving up public spending at all on A, B or C.

And of course the people directly or indirectly suggesting the massive increases never talk about the actuality of how it shall be found, how much and who from.

Squaring this circle is going to be hard both for Tories and for Labour. And that is while interest rates are keeping government debt cheap.

A better debate should be had, led by the BBC in which the discussion always looks at both sides of the equation.

Why is that though? Like, I genuinely don't understand it. Technology is continually improving. We should be able to do more with less. We generally continue to get richer as a country. Why is it that public services and infrastructure appear to be badly funded and yet the tax burden is reaching record highs?

Where is the money going?

Old people. That's literally it, we, as a nation, are shovelling ever more of it to those over 70.

I often think I'm in generation fucked. We're spending ever increasing amounts to provide our boomer parents with the best ever retirement, but by the time we're able to retire in our mid-70s many of us are likely to be spending all our pension on our rent so that the rentier class can continue to live it up.

You halfwit , no-one has ever provided me with a penny , rather I have paid a fortune to send yahoos to university to piss their lives up a wall and then whinge when they have to work in menial jobs, where I have to pay again to keep them in grandeur. Get out and earn enough to keep yourself loser.

I imagine that you didn't pay for your education.

I'm quite happy to believe that you're a net contributer, but we've all been benificiaries at some point.

Should someone get out and earn their keep then they're clearly going to be paying in the way you have.

No-one paid in those days