Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Punters give Johnson just a 32% chance of surviving 2022 – politicalbetting.com

15681011

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    MattW said:
    "I see no signal", I think it was.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,282
    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Surely the case should be decided on the facts?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    edited January 20
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @tlg86 "false negative" being used to refer to faulty negative results by:

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
    The BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lab-suspended-after-false-negative-covid-tests-2021-10-15/

    And even the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2535

    If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.

    How do you know it was used by the BBC.
    Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.

    I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
    Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
    For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.

    Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).

    I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
    OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
    When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
    You and @BartholomewRoberts two peas in a pod.
    Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?

    You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
    If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
    But he is paying the license fee?
    And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
    So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
    Oh god life's too short to go chasing after Ritz analogies.
    Completely crackers...

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,303

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    I love you HY. You are the ideal opponent. You really go the extra mile to make prospective supporters flee in the opposite direction. It is a pleasure to see you in action.
    Farooq has never expressed a single conservative view on here as far as I can see, it would not be a Conservative party if he ever voted for it
    I’m centre-right, and indeed have served as a councillor for a centre-right party. Go on, just as a wee exercise, try to persuade me to vote Scottish Conservative and Unionist.
    If Scotland were independent would you vote Scottish Centre-Right Party?
    Almost certainly.

    In fact I’d not only vote for them, I’m pretty sure I’d be a paid-up member.
    Is there a pro-Scindy centre-right party? Has one ever existed?

    (It seems odd if it doesn't)
    Yes, there have been 2 or 3 tiny ones.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,053

    Sounds a bit mafia boss....your shop burned down, that's unfortunate.

    If you don't vote my way, instead of building a new hospital in your constituency we will just rename a ward instead.

    Ummmmmm......
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014

    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483815674720010242

    “We operate in this country on the basis that publishers bear responsibility for what is published on their platforms, which is why we have such red-hot editors at the Observer”, Carole said, noting that Ted ultimately bears legal responsibility for what it publishes.

    She should get together with the PM, they have a lot in common.
    So hold on, her argument is she talked a load of bullshit, but TED should have corrected her bullshit? And that she regularly tries to publish bullshit in the Observer, but the editors correct it, or more commonly they have apologised after the fact for her bullshit.
    She’s not even trying to suggest that there’s a grain of truth to what she said about Mr Banks, just that Banks should be suing everyone except herself for her words.

    I imagine that Banks has costs running well into the six figures already.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited January 20
    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    You mean given both are thoroughly dislikeable individuals....massive legal costs all round.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    Carnyx said:

    Mr Maugham points out significance of Mr Wakeford's interview outside HoC in re threats/blackmail:

    "This is important because there was a question about whether the police could use William Wragg's evidence because of a doctrine called Parliamentary privilege. No such difficulty arises in respect of this evidence."

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1484158739078946824?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1484158739078946824|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jan/20/boris-johnson-conservatives-tory-labour-latest-updates

    I thought privileged material could be used as evidence, but not to sue the utterer.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 4,224
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @tlg86 "false negative" being used to refer to faulty negative results by:

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
    The BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lab-suspended-after-false-negative-covid-tests-2021-10-15/

    And even the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2535

    If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.

    How do you know it was used by the BBC.
    Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.

    I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
    Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
    For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.

    Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).

    I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
    OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
    When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
    You and @BartholomewRoberts two peas in a pod.
    Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?

    You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
    If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
    But he is paying the license fee?
    And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
    So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
    Oh god life's too short to go chasing after Ritz analogies.
    Yep, chasing after Ritz analogies would be Crackers.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,053
    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 15,834
    Selebian said:

    Omnium said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Senior Tory MP Steve Baker says it looks like "checkmate" for Boris Johnson, speaking on the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast

    https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1

    Baker has caused enough trouble. He's an idiot.
    Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
    Weren't we told the other day by an eminent poster that Baker is good at maths? So if he thinks it's checkmate and he can count to 54 then maybe there's something in it.
    I don't know how rigorous his chess metaphor was, but I think he was saying there's a dozen moves left in the game, but the grandmasters can see that checkmate is inevitable 12 moves down the road. So 54 letters may be a move which has yet to happen

    Group of 109 MPs in the Carlton Club with Will Wragg holding court. Obviously plotting.
    9:31 PM · Jan 18, 2022·Twitter for Android

    https://twitter.com/eyespymp/status/1483552752106156036

    344/2 = 172
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited January 20
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483815674720010242

    “We operate in this country on the basis that publishers bear responsibility for what is published on their platforms, which is why we have such red-hot editors at the Observer”, Carole said, noting that Ted ultimately bears legal responsibility for what it publishes.

    She should get together with the PM, they have a lot in common.
    So hold on, her argument is she talked a load of bullshit, but TED should have corrected her bullshit? And that she regularly tries to publish bullshit in the Observer, but the editors correct it, or more commonly they have apologised after the fact for her bullshit.
    She’s not even trying to suggest that there’s a grain of truth to what she said about Mr Banks, just that Banks should be suing everyone except herself for her words.

    I imagine that Banks has costs running well into the six figures already.
    It is certainly an interesting defence. I am so totally useless as a journalist that I can't get my facts right, but it is for everybody else to ensure that they are corrected upon submission.

    I really wonder why the Observer haven't ditched her given they have to write an apology every week for the previous weeks article.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 15,834
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Mr Maugham points out significance of Mr Wakeford's interview outside HoC in re threats/blackmail:

    "This is important because there was a question about whether the police could use William Wragg's evidence because of a doctrine called Parliamentary privilege. No such difficulty arises in respect of this evidence."

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1484158739078946824?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1484158739078946824|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jan/20/boris-johnson-conservatives-tory-labour-latest-updates

    I thought privileged material could be used as evidence, but not to sue the utterer.
    I must say I thought that but presumably kimono man knows his stuff. Perhaps you can't compel a witness to expand on what he has said with privilege
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,394

    .

    Heathener said:

    This is all beginning to look very, very, very bad for the Conservative Party. It's beginning to eclipse 1992-7 and that's saying something.

    This is not a partisan message. I thought Corbyn was a disgusting anti-semitic misogynist who made Labour pure poison to the electorate.

    But the news coming out today is appalling all round for the tories. If they don't get rid of Johnson very soon and very clinically they're in deep trouble come 2024. I think the damage may already be irreparable.

    The question is: is this Black Wednesday or Andy Coulson? Both caused a massive media storm at the time (the latter perhaps more so), had Labour thinking it had been given a deliverance, and looked to topple a prime minister. But one had no lasting political significance whatsoever.
    The scandal is specifically a Johnson scandal as we speak. I don't think it has holed the party yet. The longer they hang on to him the more damage he could do to the party.
    Anyone that voted for Johnson in 2019 had the reasonable excuse that the alternative was worse - it wasn't their fault that the party members contrived to give us a choice of Johnson or Corbyn.

    Any Tory member or MP that voted for Boris as leader can't use that excuse. They had other options. Any Tory MP that still backs him is quite clearly saying that despite everything they believe he is best person to be PM. That is how they should be judged because absolutely nothing is forcing them to keep him in office.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    edited January 20

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    The 2019 Tory majority isn't even dependent on socially conservative left wing working class voters in the north of England.

    It also got a lot of socially liberal working class voters who want to see the fruits that Brexit promised with significant investment in their towns and elsewhere up North. And a lot of those votes will have been lost in 2024 as levelling up isn't occurring fast enough and projects that had previously been promised (by previous conservative Governments) have been completely binned.

    The scary part for the tories is that a lot of people won't have noticed the failure to delivery but Labour will be able to make hay with it come the next election.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    Scott_xP said:

    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056

    Wasn’t it a wider report into connectivity in general?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,303
    Scott_xP said:

    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056

    So little? Easy come, easy go for Boris.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,282

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    I think that's true. The reason I doubted that Johnson's bad behaviour and the general sleazyness of his cabinet would be enough is that there didn't appear to be an alternative with a wide enough appeal. That all changed yesterday
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    MattW said:
    Sounds a bit mafia boss....your shop burned down, that's unfortunate.

    When the Piranhas left school they were called up but were found by an Army Board to be too unstable even for National Service.

    Denied the opportunity to use their talents in the service of their country, they began to operate what they called 'The Operation'...

    - They would select a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection money.
    - Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them.
    - One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him up.

    This for the Piranha brothers was the turning point.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056

    Wasn’t it a wider report into connectivity in general?
    Nope that is likely the cost of the report.

    Someone in the know suggested the cost of abandoning the HS2 East bound leg is £2bn or so in wasted analysis work and preparation. Not that the Government cares.

    I probably should send a FOA request to find out the full cost but I know it will be well over £1bn.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,303
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056

    Wasn’t it a wider report into connectivity in general?
    It was his lame attempt to dictate transport policy in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. So transparent. Got Gove’s fingerprints all over it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Is there a jury?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 15,834

    Scott_xP said:

    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056

    So little? Easy come, easy go for Boris.
    Yeah, that's about 2.4 flat refurbs max.
  • Andrew Teale's local election review

    https://www.britainelects.com/2022/01/20/previewing-the-council-by-elections-of-20-jan-2022/

    Loughborough Shelthorpe - 2xLabour defence in Charnwood council
    Chapel St Leonards - 1xConservative defence in East Lindsey council
    Byram and Brotherton - 1xYorkshire defence (no candidate this time around) in Selby council
    Preston, Seton and Gosford - 1xLabour defence in East Lothian council



  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    I love you HY. You are the ideal opponent. You really go the extra mile to make prospective supporters flee in the opposite direction. It is a pleasure to see you in action.
    Farooq has never expressed a single conservative view on here as far as I can see, it would not be a Conservative party if he ever voted for it
    I’m centre-right, and indeed have served as a councillor for a centre-right party. Go on, just as a wee exercise, try to persuade me to vote Scottish Conservative and Unionist.
    If Scotland were independent would you vote Scottish Centre-Right Party?
    Almost certainly.

    In fact I’d not only vote for them, I’m pretty sure I’d be a paid-up member.
    Is there a pro-Scindy centre-right party? Has one ever existed?

    (It seems odd if it doesn't)
    Yes, there have been 2 or 3 tiny ones.
    I think many centre-right independence voters acknowledge that to get indy they need keep Labour out of Holyrood. If the price for indy is voting for a party which positions itself left of centre (i.e. the SNP) for a few years, they'll pay it. Then they hope Scotland drifts economically to the right when economic reality hits and English Tories aren't about anymore to taint the main centre-right by association.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @tlg86 "false negative" being used to refer to faulty negative results by:

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
    The BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lab-suspended-after-false-negative-covid-tests-2021-10-15/

    And even the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2535

    If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.

    How do you know it was used by the BBC.
    Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.

    I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
    Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
    For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.

    Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).

    I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
    OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
    When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
    You and @BartholomewRoberts two peas in a pod.
    Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?

    You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
    If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
    But he is paying the license fee?
    And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
    So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
    Oh god life's too short to go chasing after Ritz analogies.
    Yep, chasing after Ritz analogies would be Crackers.
    This threads a bit flaky.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,282
    MattW said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Is there a jury?
    I would have thought so
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,476
    .
    Scott_xP said:

    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056

    Another non-existent bridge, nonetheless with an eye-watering cost that I can reference to demonstrate both Johnson's profligacy and the stupidity of Johnson shills.

    Get rid of this absolute and utter clown!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @tlg86 "false negative" being used to refer to faulty negative results by:

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
    The BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lab-suspended-after-false-negative-covid-tests-2021-10-15/

    And even the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2535

    If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.

    How do you know it was used by the BBC.
    Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.

    I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
    Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
    For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.

    Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).

    I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
    OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
    When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
    You and @BartholomewRoberts two peas in a pod.
    Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?

    You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
    If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
    But he is paying the license fee?
    And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
    So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
    Oh god life's too short to go chasing after Ritz analogies.
    Yep, chasing after Ritz analogies would be Crackers.
    This threads a bit flaky.
    Crumbly, more like.

    Are we having a panic at 4?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 15,834
    MattW said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Is there a jury?
    Don't think so, it's only listed for 4 days and you'd need at least that to explain the law to a jury
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,453

    Scott_xP said:

    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056

    So little? Easy come, easy go for Boris.
    I estimate it as 80 minutes of the Universal Credit cut (based on an annual cost of £6bn for the £20 each).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    Roger said:

    MattW said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Is there a jury?
    I would have thought so
    I think it’s just being heard by a judge.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited January 20
    I am no legal eagle, but I thought use of a jury for libel were exceedingly rare these days.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Omnium said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Senior Tory MP Steve Baker says it looks like "checkmate" for Boris Johnson, speaking on the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast

    https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1

    Baker has caused enough trouble. He's an idiot.
    Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
    Weren't we told the other day by an eminent poster that Baker is good at maths? So if he thinks it's checkmate and he can count to 54 then maybe there's something in it.
    I don't know how rigorous his chess metaphor was, but I think he was saying there's a dozen moves left in the game, but the grandmasters can see that checkmate is inevitable 12 moves down the road. So 54 letters may be a move which has yet to happen

    Group of 109 MPs in the Carlton Club with Will Wragg holding court. Obviously plotting.
    9:31 PM · Jan 18, 2022·Twitter for Android

    https://twitter.com/eyespymp/status/1483552752106156036

    344/2 = 172
    I haven't been concentrating 100%, but isn't "Group of 109" the name of the group, not its size ?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 15,834

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Omnium said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Senior Tory MP Steve Baker says it looks like "checkmate" for Boris Johnson, speaking on the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast

    https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1

    Baker has caused enough trouble. He's an idiot.
    Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
    Weren't we told the other day by an eminent poster that Baker is good at maths? So if he thinks it's checkmate and he can count to 54 then maybe there's something in it.
    I don't know how rigorous his chess metaphor was, but I think he was saying there's a dozen moves left in the game, but the grandmasters can see that checkmate is inevitable 12 moves down the road. So 54 letters may be a move which has yet to happen

    Group of 109 MPs in the Carlton Club with Will Wragg holding court. Obviously plotting.
    9:31 PM · Jan 18, 2022·Twitter for Android

    https://twitter.com/eyespymp/status/1483552752106156036

    344/2 = 172
    I haven't been concentrating 100%, but isn't "Group of 109" the name of the group, not its size ?
    You are right, sorry.

    If they called themselves the 2019 committee the scope for confusion would be less
  • MarylmiltonMarylmilton Posts: 12
    edited January 20

    Andrew Teale's local election review

    https://www.britainelects.com/2022/01/20/previewing-the-council-by-elections-of-20-jan-2022/

    Loughborough Shelthorpe - 2xLabour defence in Charnwood council
    Chapel St Leonards - 1xConservative defence in East Lindsey council
    Byram and Brotherton - 1xYorkshire defence (no candidate this time around) in Selby council
    Preston, Seton and Gosford - 1xLabour defence in East Lothian council



    I predict Labour will hold Preston/Seton/Gosford (even if narrowly on transfers) and Loughborough Shelthorpe and that the Tories will hold East Lindsey.

    Byram and Brotherton probably the most interesting - any of Yorkshire, Tories and Labour could win.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 20,921

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483815674720010242

    “We operate in this country on the basis that publishers bear responsibility for what is published on their platforms, which is why we have such red-hot editors at the Observer”, Carole said, noting that Ted ultimately bears legal responsibility for what it publishes.

    She should get together with the PM, they have a lot in common.
    So hold on, her argument is she talked a load of bullshit, but TED should have corrected her bullshit? And that she regularly tries to publish bullshit in the Observer, but the editors correct it, or more commonly they have apologised after the fact for her bullshit.
    She’s not even trying to suggest that there’s a grain of truth to what she said about Mr Banks, just that Banks should be suing everyone except herself for her words.

    I imagine that Banks has costs running well into the six figures already.
    It is certainly an interesting defence. I am so totally useless as a journalist that I can't get my facts right, but it is for everybody else to ensure that they are corrected upon submission.

    I really wonder why the Observer haven't ditched her given they have to write an apology every week for the previous weeks article.
    OTOH IIRC one of its competitors tried to get out of a court case by claiming it wasn't really a newspaper any more and that the dodgy story it was running wasn't intended to be taken seriously. Basically like Viz magazine, only not so funny. Can't find the case though ...
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Omnium said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Senior Tory MP Steve Baker says it looks like "checkmate" for Boris Johnson, speaking on the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast

    https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1

    Baker has caused enough trouble. He's an idiot.
    Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
    Weren't we told the other day by an eminent poster that Baker is good at maths? So if he thinks it's checkmate and he can count to 54 then maybe there's something in it.
    I don't know how rigorous his chess metaphor was, but I think he was saying there's a dozen moves left in the game, but the grandmasters can see that checkmate is inevitable 12 moves down the road. So 54 letters may be a move which has yet to happen

    Group of 109 MPs in the Carlton Club with Will Wragg holding court. Obviously plotting.
    9:31 PM · Jan 18, 2022·Twitter for Android

    https://twitter.com/eyespymp/status/1483552752106156036

    344/2 = 172
    I haven't been concentrating 100%, but isn't "Group of 109" the name of the group, not its size ?
    You are right, sorry.

    If they called themselves the 2019 committee the scope for confusion would be less
    It was either that, or the person spotting them was Raymond Babbitt.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,177

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @tlg86 "false negative" being used to refer to faulty negative results by:

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
    The BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lab-suspended-after-false-negative-covid-tests-2021-10-15/

    And even the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2535

    If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.

    How do you know it was used by the BBC.
    Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.

    I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
    Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
    For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.

    Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).

    I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
    OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
    When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
    You and @BartholomewRoberts two peas in a pod.
    Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?

    You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
    If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
    But he is paying the license fee?
    And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
    No, because its the law.

    You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.

    Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
    You used the BBC just now. You are a BBC user.
    I'm also a PB.com user but I'm not compelled by law to pay £16 a month to Mike Smithson, am I?

    Being a user is not justification for making it legally mandatory to pay, whether you're a user or not.

    Make it free to choose. I might choose to pay for the BBC, and if I do, then that is my own free choice.
    Was it a huge surprise to you that there is a licence fee?
    What are you talking about?

    Its wrong to me that there is a licence fee. Absolutely wrong.

    I choose to watch live Sport, which I pay for. That should categorically not mean having to pay for Gary Linekar to review the sport I've paid for, later that night, on a show and a channel I don't watch.
    The TV licence fee is something on which I can claim to have been an expert having for four years in the 1980s been in charge of the PR and lobbying unit within the BBC on the TV licence fee which in those days came under the Home Office. I don't know whether it is still the case but in my day a significant slice of the fee went on policing and managing the use of the broadcasting radio spectrum itself which impacted on hot just the BBC. That bit of the fee didn't go to the BBC but to the Post Office. Things have clearly changed with the internet but you are paying for a lot more than just the programmes but for the infrastructure of broadcasting itself.

    The person who really screwed the Corporation was Gordon Brown who brought in free licences for the over 75s - irrespective of whether there were younger people in the household. This was madness,

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,089
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @tlg86 "false negative" being used to refer to faulty negative results by:

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
    The BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lab-suspended-after-false-negative-covid-tests-2021-10-15/

    And even the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2535

    If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.

    How do you know it was used by the BBC.
    Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.

    I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
    Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
    For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.

    Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).

    I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
    OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
    When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
    You and @BartholomewRoberts two peas in a pod.
    Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?

    You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
    If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
    But he is paying the license fee?
    And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
    So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
    Oh god life's too short to go chasing after Ritz analogies.
    That's a bit Ritz coming from you.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,010
    edited January 20

    Scott_xP said:

    Official study into Boris Johnson’s now-abandoned dream of building a bridge to Northern Ireland cost taxpayers £900k according to new DfT figures
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1484183704574509056

    So little? Easy come, easy go for Boris.
    That reminds me, I have a £50 bet with a poster of this parish that no earth would be broken on a Scotland-Ireland bridge/tunnel/teleporter within the term of this government. Unless they wish to hold out until the BJocracy shudders to a grisly stop, he should get in touch.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196
    edited January 20

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @tlg86 "false negative" being used to refer to faulty negative results by:

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
    The BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lab-suspended-after-false-negative-covid-tests-2021-10-15/

    And even the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2535

    If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.

    How do you know it was used by the BBC.
    Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.

    I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
    Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
    For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.

    Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).

    I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
    OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
    When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
    You and @BartholomewRoberts two peas in a pod.
    Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?

    You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
    If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
    But he is paying the license fee?
    And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
    No, because its the law.

    You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.

    Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
    You used the BBC just now. You are a BBC user.
    I'm also a PB.com user but I'm not compelled by law to pay £16 a month to Mike Smithson, am I?

    Being a user is not justification for making it legally mandatory to pay, whether you're a user or not.

    Make it free to choose. I might choose to pay for the BBC, and if I do, then that is my own free choice.
    Was it a huge surprise to you that there is a licence fee?
    What are you talking about?

    Its wrong to me that there is a licence fee. Absolutely wrong.

    I choose to watch live Sport, which I pay for. That should categorically not mean having to pay for Gary Linekar to review the sport I've paid for, later that night, on a show and a channel I don't watch.
    The TV licence fee is something on which I can claim to have been an expert having for four years in the 1980s been in charge of the PR and lobbying unit within the BBC on the TV licence fee which in those days came under the Home Office. I don't know whether it is still the case but in my day a significant slice of the fee went on policing and managing the use of the broadcasting radio spectrum itself which impacted on hot just the BBC. That bit of the fee didn't go to the BBC but to the Post Office. Things have clearly changed with the internet but you are paying for a lot more than just the programmes but for the infrastructure of broadcasting itself.

    The person who really screwed the Corporation was Gordon Brown who brought in free licences for the over 75s - irrespective of whether there were younger people in the household. This was madness,

    A good point, Mike. But if there is infrastructure and infrastructure policing/management that needs to be funded as a public good, is not taxation the more usual, more efficient, and more equitable way to fund it?

    Strip that out of the BBC completely and put it in government where it belongs under the general budget. Let the BBC do its programming, and find other ways to fund that.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,282

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    You mean given both are thoroughly dislikeable individuals....massive legal costs all round.
    All costs will be paid by the plaintiff if he doesn't win unless there were offers made that were refused
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,189
    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Regarding masking – my son's headmaster has just written to all parents saying that they are keeping the masks in classrooms due to local authority guidance. Is this commonplace? Seems ludicrous to me that the rule is dropped but schools keep it anyway!

    Gold plating.

    The law is the lowest common denominator. Councils can go above and beyond that, while individual schools can go above and beyond local authority rules.

    Lancashire County Council have been doing this all along on the grounds that they have higher case rates in Lancashire, despite the fact high case rates were only in certain parts of Lancashire.
    Yes, this is all too common.
    It's not that the whole public sector is wildly pro-mask - though you do sometimes get that impression - but almost by definition local authorities' public health teams are pro-mask; and they tend to get to call the shots in these cases.
    Further to this - just heard from my daughter's school that while masks will no longer be required in classrooms, they still want them to wear them when walking around the school, in 'unstructured times', in communal areas, when queueing for lunch and (though this seems to be well beyond their powers) on public transport.


    That makes sense as the rules in communal areas continue for another week - it's only in teaching environments (i.e. classrooms) that today's rules apply to.
    Ah, fair do's. We'll give them another week before getting too grumpy :smile:
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    You mean given both are thoroughly dislikeable individuals....massive legal costs all round.
    All costs will be paid by the plaintiff if he doesn't win unless there were offers made that were refused
    I was obviously joking.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,282
    edited January 20
    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Surely the case should be decided on the facts?
    In this day and age that's almost funny. In libel cases until recently truth wasn't even a defense
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 54,837
    The Cabinet must live up to their responsibilities the shop steward & conscience of the Tory right tells me. Our full conversation on the future of the Conservatives will be on Political Thinking tomorrow

    https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1484190940990476291?s=21
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    I doubt that one is going to work: I’m utterly bankrupt, but my recently ex-wife lives in a nice house and has lots of money because I gave it all to her. His only saving grace might be if he was divorced before the case against him was launched, rather than when it concluded.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited January 20

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
    I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
  • HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?

    Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law?
    If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?

    And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”

    image
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
    I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
    Books and leaflets, and briefly quite a bit from platforms like Patreon and Youtube before they all kicked him off.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Surely the case should be decided on the facts?
    In this day and age that's almost funny. In libel cases until recently truth wasn't even a defense
    So you want to go back to that arrangement? A case shouldn’t be decided just because someone is “unpleasant” to some.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
    I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
    It is quite remarkable what you can do with a certain amount of errrrr....... grift?

    The back page of Private Eye about various serial errrrrr...... "starters of business" annoys me. I look at the things they have done and think of the vast wealth I could have accumulated by creating a demented "business plan" and getting fools to throw money at me.

    My mistake was to concentrate on ideas involving selling a product that exists and works. And that a rational person might want.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,385
    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:

    An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.

    It will say: there were parties
    The PM attended one or more
    He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said
    There should not have been parties

    MPs can decide now what they want to do next.


    The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.

    Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".

    Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
    Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
    He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
    Yes

    Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests

    Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
    I was simply pointing out that such an email or one saying "I've told the PM and he still wants it to go ahead" would be a smoking gun. In their absence we're back to making assumptions or relying on what the PPS now says he said at the time and what the PM now says he understood his PPS to be telling him etc.

    To my mind the Gray report is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether the PM is fit to do his role as Tory MPs already have ample evidence on which to base their judgment.

    My view is that neither the PM nor some of his staff paid any real regard to the rules, except intermittently (at best) and assumed that they'd either never be caught or no-one would care. They were wrong on the latter and are now very very sorry indeed that they've been caught.
    Actually, they are very very sorry for "any mistakes which might have been made".
    But being caught I suppose comes into it.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    Sandpit said:

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    I doubt that one is going to work: I’m utterly bankrupt, but my recently ex-wife lives in a nice house and has lots of money because I gave it all to her. His only saving grace might be if he was divorced before the case against him was launched, rather than when it concluded.
    Don't think that's going to wash as the people chasing the money know what they are looking for which is Mr Robinson spending time in the property which they appear to have evidence of.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,385
    MISTY said:

    Omnium said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Senior Tory MP Steve Baker says it looks like "checkmate" for Boris Johnson, speaking on the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast

    https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1

    Baker has caused enough trouble. He's an idiot.
    Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
    In that interview Baker sounded almost as disillusioned about those who would replace Boris as he is with the regime itself.

    Does that mean he is, or isn't running ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:

    An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.

    It will say: there were parties
    The PM attended one or more
    He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said
    There should not have been parties

    MPs can decide now what they want to do next.


    The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.

    Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".

    Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
    Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
    He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
    Yes

    Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests

    Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
    I was simply pointing out that such an email or one saying "I've told the PM and he still wants it to go ahead" would be a smoking gun. In their absence we're back to making assumptions or relying on what the PPS now says he said at the time and what the PM now says he understood his PPS to be telling him etc.

    To my mind the Gray report is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether the PM is fit to do his role as Tory MPs already have ample evidence on which to base their judgment.

    My view is that neither the PM nor some of his staff paid any real regard to the rules, except intermittently (at best) and assumed that they'd either never be caught or no-one would care. They were wrong on the latter and are now very very sorry indeed that they've been caught.
    Actually, they are very very sorry for "any mistakes which might have been made".
    But being caught I suppose comes into it.
    When they are "very very sorry for 'any mistakes which might have been made'."

    They are including the mistake of..... getting caught.

    Obvious really.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited January 20
    Sandpit said:

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
    I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
    Books and leaflets, and briefly quite a bit from platforms like Patreon and Youtube before they all kicked him off.
    Even before that he appears to have acquired a lot of money at various times (he got done for mortgage fraud at one point), but his YouTube stuff was definitely very lucrative.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,053
    Labour leads the Conservatives in the North West by 22 points - LAB 53% (+6), CON 30% (-8) LD 6% (-1) GRE 5% (+2) AP 6% (-) - Changes vs 2019 GE. https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1484193501109706758/photo/1
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,385
    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Omnium said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Senior Tory MP Steve Baker says it looks like "checkmate" for Boris Johnson, speaking on the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast

    https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1

    Baker has caused enough trouble. He's an idiot.
    Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
    Weren't we told the other day by an eminent poster that Baker is good at maths? So if he thinks it's checkmate and he can count to 54 then maybe there's something in it.
    I don't know how rigorous his chess metaphor was, but I think he was saying there's a dozen moves left in the game, but the grandmasters can see that checkmate is inevitable 12 moves down the road. So 54 letters may be a move which has yet to happen

    Group of 109 MPs in the Carlton Club with Will Wragg holding court. Obviously plotting.
    9:31 PM · Jan 18, 2022·Twitter for Android

    https://twitter.com/eyespymp/status/1483552752106156036

    344/2 = 172
    Or he just wants to avoid zugswang.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,385

    He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?

    Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law?
    If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?

    And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”

    image

    So Fabricant is prepared to sell his vote for favours ?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,486
    £900k spent to tell the PM his bridge to Ireland plan was crackers?
    I'd have done it for a tenth of that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?

    Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law?
    If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?

    And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”

    image

    I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.

    I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.

    So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 15,834

    He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?

    Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law?
    If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?

    And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”

    image

    No, it is sleazy as fuck, and even if it is true it's like saying I shoplift from Tesco, everybody does it and it's not like it makes any real difference to their bottom line
    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Surely the case should be decided on the facts?
    In this day and age that's almost funny. In libel cases until recently truth wasn't even a defense
    Categorically and emphatically not true.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 796
    dixiedean said:

    £900k spent to tell the PM his bridge to Ireland plan was crackers?
    I'd have done it for a tenth of that.

    I think I would've done it for a two hundredth!
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,411
    edited January 20

    The Cabinet must live up to their responsibilities the shop steward & conscience of the Tory right tells me. Our full conversation on the future of the Conservatives will be on Political Thinking tomorrow

    https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1484190940990476291?s=21

    Not picked up so much by the press so far, but Baker is important.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited January 20

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
    I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
    It is quite remarkable what you can do with a certain amount of errrrr....... grift?

    The back page of Private Eye about various serial errrrrr...... "starters of business" annoys me. I look at the things they have done and think of the vast wealth I could have accumulated by creating a demented "business plan" and getting fools to throw money at me.

    My mistake was to concentrate on ideas involving selling a product that exists and works. And that a rational person might want.
    I always chuckle at the business idea they pitch in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking barrels.

    Amazingly there was a hire car fraud that sort of worked that way that I experienced. Firm sells vouchers for hire car after having done deals with all the big companies. Individual pays now for discounted rate, hire car company invoices voucher company after individual has used car. On backend it is actually a network of companies through which the payments go, run them for a couple of years legit, then slowly start delaying paying invoices, do some iffy accounting make it look like big profits in one part of the network, take massive owner payouts, oh woophs can't pay all those invoices, network falls apart, leaves hire car companies stiffed.

    I only know this because all of a sudden one day out of the blue, Hertz Canada billed by credit card for like £1000. I had hired a car for a month in Canada the previous year. I of course got onto my credit card company about this and after investigation they told me all about the above scam and that Hertz was just trying to strong arm customers out of money, hoping they would just pay it (as most it would be much less).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,486

    The Cabinet must live up to their responsibilities the shop steward & conscience of the Tory right tells me. Our full conversation on the future of the Conservatives will be on Political Thinking tomorrow

    https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1484190940990476291?s=21

    I thought shop stewards and consciences were two things the Tory Right hated?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,385

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:

    An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.

    It will say: there were parties
    The PM attended one or more
    He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said
    There should not have been parties

    MPs can decide now what they want to do next.


    The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.

    Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".

    Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
    Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
    He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
    Yes

    Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests

    Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
    I was simply pointing out that such an email or one saying "I've told the PM and he still wants it to go ahead" would be a smoking gun. In their absence we're back to making assumptions or relying on what the PPS now says he said at the time and what the PM now says he understood his PPS to be telling him etc.

    To my mind the Gray report is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether the PM is fit to do his role as Tory MPs already have ample evidence on which to base their judgment.

    My view is that neither the PM nor some of his staff paid any real regard to the rules, except intermittently (at best) and assumed that they'd either never be caught or no-one would care. They were wrong on the latter and are now very very sorry indeed that they've been caught.
    Actually, they are very very sorry for "any mistakes which might have been made".
    But being caught I suppose comes into it.
    When they are "very very sorry for 'any mistakes which might have been made'."

    They are including the mistake of..... getting caught.

    Obvious really.
    That too they don't actually admit to. Obviously.
  • Andrew Teale's local election review

    https://www.britainelects.com/2022/01/20/previewing-the-council-by-elections-of-20-jan-2022/

    Loughborough Shelthorpe - 2xLabour defence in Charnwood council
    Chapel St Leonards - 1xConservative defence in East Lindsey council
    Byram and Brotherton - 1xYorkshire defence (no candidate this time around) in Selby council
    Preston, Seton and Gosford - 1xLabour defence in East Lothian council



    I predict Labour will hold Preston/Seton/Gosford (even if narrowly on transfers) and Loughborough Shelthorpe and that the Tories will hold East Lindsey.

    Byram and Brotherton probably the most interesting - any of Yorkshire, Tories and Labour could win.
    Oooooh Byram and Brotherton (or ‘Brov’ as I know it) is a couple of miles away from me. My dad lives in Fairburn, a village in the ward, so I know it well.

    You’re right, it could go either way. If the election was pre-Paterson, pre-Partygate I’d have said the Tories might pip it. Not so sure now though.

    Fairburn’s getting older, my dad (age 68) is always saying the village is getting boring cos everyone’s old. Brov and Byram (they’re basically one village really you can’t tell where one ends and the other starts) might have a decent Labour vote.

    So I’m mildly interested in the result!
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,135
    Nigelb said:

    MISTY said:

    Omnium said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Senior Tory MP Steve Baker says it looks like "checkmate" for Boris Johnson, speaking on the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast

    https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1

    Baker has caused enough trouble. He's an idiot.
    Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
    In that interview Baker sounded almost as disillusioned about those who would replace Boris as he is with the regime itself.

    Does that mean he is, or isn't running ?
    If he runs or not he has zero chance.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
    I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
    It is quite remarkable what you can do with a certain amount of errrrr....... grift?

    The back page of Private Eye about various serial errrrrr...... "starters of business" annoys me. I look at the things they have done and think of the vast wealth I could have accumulated by creating a demented "business plan" and getting fools to throw money at me.

    My mistake was to concentrate on ideas involving selling a product that exists and works. And that a rational person might want.
    I always chuckle at the business idea they pitch in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking barrels.

    Amazingly there was a hire car fraud that sort of worked that way that I experienced. Firm sells vouchers for hire car after having done deals with all the big companies. Individual pays now for discounted rate, hire car company invoices voucher company after individual has used car. On backend it is actually a network of companies through which the payments go, run them for a couple of years legit, then slowly start delaying paying invoices, do some iffy accounting make it look like big profits in one part of the network, take massive owner payouts, oh woophs can't pay all those invoices, network falls apart, leaves hire car companies stiffed.
    When I was growing up, in Oxford, there was always a nightclub in the Westgate centre. A sleazy dump, that went bankrupt every year.

    Interestingly, it's successor always managed to buy stock on account with the breweries etc.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,533
    Weird thing to write, but Baker doesn't strike me as particularly rightwing.

    Libertarian, absolutely yes, rightwing in the classic sense, no.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 15,834

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
    I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
    It is quite remarkable what you can do with a certain amount of errrrr....... grift?

    The back page of Private Eye about various serial errrrrr...... "starters of business" annoys me. I look at the things they have done and think of the vast wealth I could have accumulated by creating a demented "business plan" and getting fools to throw money at me.

    My mistake was to concentrate on ideas involving selling a product that exists and works. And that a rational person might want.
    I always chuckle at the business idea they pitch in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking barrels.

    Amazingly there was a hire car fraud that sort of worked that way that I experienced. Firm sells vouchers for hire car after having done deals with all the big companies. Individual pays now for discounted rate, hire car company invoices voucher company after individual has used car. On backend it is actually a network of companies through which the payments go, run them for a couple of years legit, then slowly start delaying paying invoices, do some iffy accounting make it look like big profits in one part of the network, take massive owner payouts, oh woophs can't pay all those invoices, network falls apart, leaves hire car companies stiffed.
    What pisses me off about that film is that double barrelled hammer guns are worth peanuts. Even if they are a matched pair of Purdeys which used to belong to George V. Literally, £10k the pair tops.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,282
    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    MattW said:

    Somewhat partisan thread on the Banks-Cadwalladr action, about Carol giving evidence:

    https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730

    Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
    I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
    Surely the case should be decided on the facts?
    In this day and age that's almost funny. In libel cases until recently truth wasn't even a defense
    So you want to go back to that arrangement? A case shouldn’t be decided just because someone is “unpleasant” to some.
    If you want my opinion I'm not a big fan of libel. It's only there for the rich and it very much depends on the mores of the day. Christine Keeler wins and gets 5p.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,385
    jonny83 said:

    Nigelb said:

    MISTY said:

    Omnium said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Senior Tory MP Steve Baker says it looks like "checkmate" for Boris Johnson, speaking on the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast

    https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1

    Baker has caused enough trouble. He's an idiot.
    Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
    In that interview Baker sounded almost as disillusioned about those who would replace Boris as he is with the regime itself.

    Does that mean he is, or isn't running ?
    If he runs or not he has zero chance.
    Spoilsport.
  • HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    @HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government

    Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt

    On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019

    I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited January 20
    Headline figures - 107,364 cases, 330 deaths.

    Looks like reduction in cases have plateaued this week. Leon of Sri Lanka will be getting a wibble on about Omicron V2.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    edited January 20

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    If the price of their support is SM membership or joining a CU with the EU then yes it is better to go into opposition.

    As for every voter like TSE or Richard Navabi who went from the LDs in 2019 say back to the Tories, 5 2019 Tory voters would in turn go RefUK.

    So we would end up in opposition anyway, just with even fewer MPs than otherwise
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    @HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government

    Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt

    On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019

    I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
    I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    @HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government

    Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt

    On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019

    I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
    I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
    Broken record
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 51,297
    edited January 20
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    @HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government

    Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt

    On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019

    I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
    I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
    The conservative party is in a full blown civil war, and you make such immature statements rather than join those of us who want to vote for the party and back toxic Boris being thrown out of office
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,809
    From the legal definition of blackmail posted earlier it would seem that as long as the whips believe they are allowed to "blackmail" someone, then they are allowed to do so.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    @HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government

    Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt

    On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019

    I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
    “ a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, “

    I tick most those boxes and come from a family who tick them all!

    Scary post 😲
  • Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions

    Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    @HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government

    Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt

    On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019

    I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
    I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
    The conservative party is in a full blown civil war, and you make such immature statements rather than join those of us who want to vote for the party and back toxic Boris being thrown out of office
    I will still be voting Tory whether Boris or Sunak is leader, if Sunak is not leader you will no doubt be back to voting Labour or LD again next time
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    .

    Sandpit said:

    I see Tommy Robinson is trying an equally interesting defence...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

    I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.

    One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
    I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
    Books and leaflets, and briefly quite a bit from platforms like Patreon and Youtube before they all kicked him off.
    Even before that he appears to have acquired a lot of money at various times (he got done for mortgage fraud at one point), but his YouTube stuff was definitely very lucrative.
    Once you have a certain level of profile, it’s usually easy to find ways of raising money, even as the more traditional internet platforms kick you off.

    ISTR one of these types, possibly in the States, that set themselves up a a legitimate business selling random but overpriced stuff on eBay or Amazon, and getting the message out through private group chats that this was the seller to ‘buy’ from, if you wanted to donate to him.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 40,543
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    @HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government

    Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt

    On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019

    I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
    I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
    You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @tlg86 "false negative" being used to refer to faulty negative results by:

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
    The BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lab-suspended-after-false-negative-covid-tests-2021-10-15/

    And even the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2535

    If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.

    How do you know it was used by the BBC.
    Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.

    I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
    Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
    For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.

    Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).

    I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
    OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
    When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
    You and @BartholomewRoberts two peas in a pod.
    Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?

    You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
    If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
    But he is paying the license fee?
    And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
    No, because its the law.

    You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.

    Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
    You used the BBC just now. You are a BBC user.
    I'm also a PB.com user but I'm not compelled by law to pay £16 a month to Mike Smithson, am I?

    Being a user is not justification for making it legally mandatory to pay, whether you're a user or not.

    Make it free to choose. I might choose to pay for the BBC, and if I do, then that is my own free choice.
    Was it a huge surprise to you that there is a licence fee?
    What are you talking about?

    Its wrong to me that there is a licence fee. Absolutely wrong.

    I choose to watch live Sport, which I pay for. That should categorically not mean having to pay for Gary Linekar to review the sport I've paid for, later that night, on a show and a channel I don't watch.
    The TV licence fee is something on which I can claim to have been an expert having for four years in the 1980s been in charge of the PR and lobbying unit within the BBC on the TV licence fee which in those days came under the Home Office. I don't know whether it is still the case but in my day a significant slice of the fee went on policing and managing the use of the broadcasting radio spectrum itself which impacted on hot just the BBC. That bit of the fee didn't go to the BBC but to the Post Office. Things have clearly changed with the internet but you are paying for a lot more than just the programmes but for the infrastructure of broadcasting itself.

    The person who really screwed the Corporation was Gordon Brown who brought in free licences for the over 75s - irrespective of whether there were younger people in the household. This was madness,

    Why should Live TV viewers be paying for the policing and managing the use of radio spectrum via a Poll Tax?

    Surely the infrastructure is a state issue that should be paid for by all taxpayers not just those that choose to watch Live TV? Especially since unlike in the 80s none of my TV is even received via spectrum anyway.

    We don't even have an aerial on our house, all our live channels are either streamed or received via Sky's infrastructure I pay Sky for.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited January 20

    Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions

    Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home

    Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Chris said:

    It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.

    I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis.
    I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
    The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
    That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.

    If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.

    I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
    Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
    The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.

    All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".

    If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
    HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet).
    By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
    Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.

    That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.

    Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.

    In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
    So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
    @HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government

    Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt

    On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019

    I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
    I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
    You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
    So George Galloway is a Conservative because he voted Leave in 2016.

    What a ridiculous post.

    However respecting the Leave vote and backing Brexit is now a Conservative principle
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    UK Local R

    image
This discussion has been closed.