I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
You seem very down on him. Nobody has said in terms that they want to have his babies, but he has twice in the past 4 months smashed it out of the park, once by speaking out on Paterson 24 hours before Paterson unravelled, and once yesterday. I would be aware of him independently of his PBing because of those two incidents: the combination of being morally right, politically ahead of the game, and all over the telly, is not something you hit on by accident. Not twice anyway. I don't know if the Spectator still does a backbencher of the year award, but if it does he's a shoo in.
As I say, I don't know him and I have no feelings either way – I was just interested in his history as I don't really remember him as a poster (that is not to say he wasn't a good/great one)
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Sorry to talk about political betting for a few moments, but I'm assuming from reading the comments on here that everyone is helping themselves to the seemingly free money on offer for Boris not surviving this, and for the Tories to be obliterated in the next General Election?
I have to say I'm not. I'm on Boris to be replaced as PM in 2024 or later at 13/2 and have a small covering bet on 2023 at 8/1. I notice that both these odds have closed massively already, and at the moment these look to me to be incredible value. I'm also have quite a bit on SKS to be next PM at 19/2 and have recently bet for the first time on a Tory majority at the next election at 2/1.
I am trying to find some attractive odds on a quicker Boris exit, but while I see it as a possibility, I believe the betting probabilities of this are hugely overstated at present. The bar for the tory party removing him is a very high one, as is the bar for having to resign for misleading parliament. I just can't see it. But if anyone has any good bets to go with the Rishi as next PM at 250/1 that I'm on thanks to Philip/Bartholomew/OGS, I'd be interested in hearing them.
While I can absolutely understand the anger and repulsion towards Boris at present, I still feel that, on balance, the most likely outcome is for Boris to survive, and recover, possibly enough to win the next election with a much reduced majority.
Again, I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this.
I earned myself 31 quid backing him not to resign by yesterday. That was free money.
As for the next election, British elections have become popularity contests between the two potential PMs, and very few recover from the depths of unpopularity Johnson has reached. It would take something for Starmer to tank to that level.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Because the result (remaining) is “enacted” first, even if enacting it involves doing nothing. So there is an asymmetry.
That's a fair point.
But the people are allowed to change their mind. If the LibDems had won the election in 2017 with 52% of the vote on a policy of a new referendum, would that be fundamentally undemocratic? Or would that be the people changing their mind?
Fortunately, that didn't happen. But if it had, it wouldn't have been undemocratic, it would have been people changing their mind.
I also don't like (in general) this whole idea of 'a generation'. Voters get to choose their representatives every five years (or less). It shouldn't be the case that some people who voted a couple of General Elections ago, are able to tie the hands of today's elected representatives.
Fundamentally the public did have a second vote, they had a chance in 2019 to elect a government who would have done things differently, and they chose to Get Brexit Done with Johnson.
So everyone should be happy. Remain had the chance to convince voters they had made a mistake, Leavers had a specific Withdrawal Deal endorsed by the electorate. Democracy was the winner and the issue was settled.
So. Everyone's happy. You are happy, right?
Yes, that's pretty much my view.
It is a very silly and unnuanced view. The "choice" at that GE was between Dumb and Dumber, where Dumber said he would completely fuck the country even more than Dumb would. The electorate, including many who thought Brexit as pointless as it has turned out to be, voted Dumb as the ridiculous but only slightly less ridiculous choice.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
I note that Mr Ed, who spent much of the post Potus election ramping Trump defeat-reversals then equivocating over Trump's role in January 6, will continue to vote for him. It makes you wonder what Trump would have to do to lose his vote, but I can't say I'm hugely surprised.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
He's shit scared that Carrie will withhold sex, everything takes second place to that drive for Boris getting laid so all UK policy will be what Carrie wants.
He doesn't rely on Carrie for sex, surely?
He’s never been monogamous in his life. Profoundly unlikely to start now.
He may just find the opportunities are harder, he has more pressures on his time and more attention on his movements.
Sorry to talk about political betting for a few moments, but I'm assuming from reading the comments on here that everyone is helping themselves to the seemingly free money on offer for Boris not surviving this, and for the Tories to be obliterated in the next General Election?
I have to say I'm not. I'm on Boris to be replaced as PM in 2024 or later at 13/2 and have a small covering bet on 2023 at 8/1. I notice that both these odds have closed massively already, and at the moment these look to me to be incredible value. I'm also have quite a bit on SKS to be next PM at 19/2 and have recently bet for the first time on a Tory majority at the next election at 2/1.
I am trying to find some attractive odds on a quicker Boris exit, but while I see it as a possibility, I believe the betting probabilities of this are hugely overstated at present. The bar for the tory party removing him is a very high one, as is the bar for having to resign for misleading parliament. I just can't see it. But if anyone has any good bets to go with the Rishi as next PM at 250/1 that I'm on thanks to Philip/Bartholomew/OGS, I'd be interested in hearing them.
While I can absolutely understand the anger and repulsion towards Boris at present, I still feel that, on balance, the most likely outcome is for Boris to survive, and recover, possibly enough to win the next election with a much reduced majority.
Again, I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this.
13/2 is pretty good.
I think he has a 40% chance of surviving 2022 if he does that he will likely make it to GE2024
Assuming he loses that your bet wins. I suspect a narrow win will also result in him going and you winning.
I think the most likely scenario is a decent size Tory Majority which is a danger for your bet but maybe a 2 time win is his legacy and he decides to go out on top
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a very polite poster, too. Always civil, evidenced and constructive when disagreeing. A bit like NPXMP on the other side. If all Tories were like him, it would make me reconsider tbh.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Neither position makes any sense unless one is to believe that nations vote and are defined as a uniform block. It's classic national populism, conflating a nation with a party. Scots Nats seem to do it as much as Brexiteer Tories.
Unless people and what they "deserve" are defined by their nationality or ethnicity, then an English non-Tory voter has no lesser claim to exemption from just deserts than an SNP-voting Scot. Just as an anti-Putin Russian no more deserves to suffer under his autocracy than a Ukrainian.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
That fat little bloke, you remember him? He that is the only leading politician of these islands with perhaps a more atrocious reputation than Boris Johnson, and was described by his own QC as "a bully and a sex pest" told everyone it was a "once in a generation opportunity". I believe he used to lead the SNP and was First Minister, so I guess he knew what he was saying.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Who doesn't love reading praise about themselves?
Hint hint.
That is a wonderful post. I don't know how you do it so often.
I note that Mr Ed, who spent much of the post Potus election ramping Trump defeat-reversals then equivocating over Trump's role in January 6, will continue to vote for him. It makes you wonder what Trump would have to do to lose his vote, but I can't say I'm hugely surprised.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Noted with thanks.
I must write something rude about him. It will make him laugh.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
There was a reference to "the result of the referendum being respected" in the Edinburgh Agreement which you SNP Types failed spectacularly to fufill by starting the campaign for indyref2 the very day the result was announced.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Noted with thanks.
I must write something rude about him. It will make him laugh.
Something like Bet 365 are way more profitable since he left....
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Who doesn't love reading praise about themselves?
Hint hint.
That is a wonderful post. I don't know how you do it so often.
I've made a mistake asking for it - now I'll never trust praise recieved again. Oh the agony of unintended consequences.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Just because Unionists won does not give you carte blanche to behave like twats.
We'll give the Nats carte blanche to act like losers.....
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
In 1940-45 we had a Coalition government; Attlee was Deputy PM and, in particular Ernie Bevin was Minister of Labour. Hence the Bevin Boys, for those who were called up to be coal-miners, like (ahem) J Saville.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
Wales voted for Brexit too and the Tories got a higher voteshare in Wales than in London in 2019.
The DUP backed Brexit and were still largest party in NI in 2019.
Scotland did not but then again only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 either
Northern Ireland voted to Remain (just like you!).
So Mike, you mean that a LOYAL Tory would be demanding the ouster of Boris Johnson, for the good of the Conservative and (Dis)Unionist Party, even IF they do NOT give a damn about their country?
And that those "Conservatives" who even now continue to defend Boris Johnson, by praising him with faint damn and other such sophistry, are either ignorant dupes, or conscious wreckers of the cause they claim to uphold?
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
In 1940-45 we had a Coalition government; Attlee was Deputy PM and, in particular Ernie Bevin was Minister of Labour. Hence the Bevin Boys, for those who were called up to be coal-miners, like (ahem) J Saville.
387 Tory MPs were in the Commons however from 1940-45, only 154 Labour MPs
Again, I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this.
It's been said a few times that it's rare to change PM mid-term. In the last four decades it has happened only four times, and we're already in an unusual period to have had two such changes in the last six years.
I find it incredibly hard to judge, because the question comes down to the decisions of a few hundred Tory MPs.
Thinking back to when it has happened in the past (e.g. 1990, 2019) and when it hasn't, but arguably should have (e.g. 1995, 2009), a change has occurred when there has been a clear policy change to implement with the change of leader, and a clear candidate to take over to make that change backed by a majority.
There doesn't seem to be a pressing issue of policy - we're simply in the realms of the leader being unpopular for being who they are - and there isn't a clear alternative who would make everything better.
This creates a great deal of uncertainty for Tory MPs. It might not be clear to them that acting would make anything that much better - particularly given Johnson's proven provenance as an election winner.
I think they will find reasons to put off action. And then there will be a GE.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
In 1940-45 we had a Coalition government; Attlee was Deputy PM and, in particular Ernie Bevin was Minister of Labour. Hence the Bevin Boys, for those who were called up to be coal-miners, like (ahem) J Saville.
387 Tory MPs were in the Commons however from 1940-45, only 154 Labour MPs
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
There was a reference to "the result of the referendum being respected" in the Edinburgh Agreement which you SNP Types failed spectacularly to fufill by starting the campaign for indyref2 the very day the result was announced.
You seem weirdly obsessed with this topic. If there was another referendum, you could vote to stay in. What are you afraid of?
Can anyone tell me the significance of the Peter Aldous call for resignation? I've not heard his name mentioned previously as a rebel so I'm curious.
Re. the post below about Johnson's chances of survival to 2024, it's certainly possible. But I don't think that should be lumped together with the chances of a Conservative victory in 2024. They're two different issues and collating them could lead to betting losses. I base that remark on the empirically record-breaking negative ratings for Johnson.
I also think, more anecdotally, that Johnson is his own worst enemy. He is character-flawed so, no, I don't think things are going to get better to coin a well-known phrase from another era.
A slightly odd analogy, in that Mackay wasn't portrayed in Porridge as being a particularly effective prison officer and indeed often his abrasiveness caused trouble for him and the prison authorities (nor was Barraclough, of course, but the overall message was a bit of both were needed to keep the peace).
I actually think Hoyle is doing a pretty good job in really difficult circumstances where we have a PM of exceptional mendacity, and quite a few MPs on all benches who want to make a name for themselves in a social media age by deliberately pushing at the rules.
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
There was a reference to "the result of the referendum being respected" in the Edinburgh Agreement which you SNP Types failed spectacularly to fufill by starting the campaign for indyref2 the very day the result was announced.
You seem weirdly obsessed with this topic. If there was another referendum, you could vote to stay in. What are you afraid of?
Can anyone tell me the significance of the Peter Aldous call for resignation? I've not heard his name mentioned previously as a rebel so I'm curious.
Re. the post below about Johnson's chances of survival to 2024, it's certainly possible. But I don't think that should be lumped together with the chances of a Conservative victory in 2024. They're two different issues and collating them could lead to betting losses. I base that remark on the empirically record-breaking negative ratings for Johnson.
I also think, more anecdotally, that Johnson is his own worst enemy. He is character-flawed so, no, I don't think things are going to get better to coin a well-known phrase from another era.
Turnip taliban
Peter Aldous was born in Ipswich, Suffolk.[1] He has lived in the north of the county for most of his life.[3] His family own farms near Ipswich and the market town of Halesworth.[2] He was educated at Harrow School and graduated from the University of Reading with a degree in Land Management in 1982.[1]
Before his election Aldous was as a chartered surveyor in Norwich.[2][1] He is a keen squash player. He supports Ipswich Town F.C..[3]
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
There was a reference to "the result of the referendum being respected" in the Edinburgh Agreement which you SNP Types failed spectacularly to fufill by starting the campaign for indyref2 the very day the result was announced.
You seem weirdly obsessed with this topic. If there was another referendum, you could vote to stay in. What are you afraid of?
It is a good question. There are many parallels with the Brexit referendum (as we now know it). As many on here will know, I was massively opposed to Brexit and think it has been demonstrated to be a complete waste of time.
Do I think there should be another one? No, because those of us that wanted Remain lost and we should respect that (whether leavers would if it were the other way around is another matter!) even though it is still a pile of shit. Another referendum would be a continuation of division. The same applies to Scotland. The Nats knew what Salmond said about the "once in a generation". They should wait for a generation to pass and then they can try again.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Because the result (remaining) is “enacted” first, even if enacting it involves doing nothing. So there is an asymmetry.
That's a fair point.
But the people are allowed to change their mind. If the LibDems had won the election in 2017 with 52% of the vote on a policy of a new referendum, would that be fundamentally undemocratic? Or would that be the people changing their mind?
Fortunately, that didn't happen. But if it had, it wouldn't have been undemocratic, it would have been people changing their mind.
I also don't like (in general) this whole idea of 'a generation'. Voters get to choose their representatives every five years (or less). It shouldn't be the case that some people who voted a couple of General Elections ago, are able to tie the hands of today's elected representatives.
Fundamentally the public did have a second vote, they had a chance in 2019 to elect a government who would have done things differently, and they chose to Get Brexit Done with Johnson.
So everyone should be happy. Remain had the chance to convince voters they had made a mistake, Leavers had a specific Withdrawal Deal endorsed by the electorate. Democracy was the winner and the issue was settled.
So. Everyone's happy. You are happy, right?
Yes, that's pretty much my view.
Yes, I think the practical and inevitable consequence of it being an advisory referendum was not to invalidate David Cameron's Conservative promise, or indeed Labour's, to honour the referendum, whatever that meant, but that the form that delivery took was entirely and correctly subsumed into representative electoral politics and the need for agreement there.
I bow to no man in my defence of the honour 17-19 parliament, the votes around Brexit were almost entirely in line with manifestos, their interpretation (no deal/bad deal was a defensible ERG rallying cry, as was absolute insistence on SM type Brexit by Labour and anti-Brexit platforms were honoured), known individual platforms (e.g. Lexiters, ERG, 2nd referendumers). Only the Tories who ended up voting against all forms of Brexit broke that, and that barely spread beyond TIG. You may think some positions were disingenuous, but ultimately they weren't tested. Nearly everyone held their lines, and nearly everyone's lines were legitimate and defensible, not least by GE17.
There's a separate discussion on whether the politics was done well, I remember doing an order of blame for different outcomes, but that was a discussion of tactics rather than principle.
But, if you bow to that, then bowing to GE 19 as the ultimate arbiter of Brexit has to follow, because as the dementia tax has its role in confounding Brexit in 2017, or Corbyn's toxicity had its role in GE 2019, ultimately the electorate saw and had their way.
More fundamentally, you may campaign to change the rules but any such campaign will stand or fall by the rules: politics and democracy is always played on the rules as they are, and calling foul on that is howling at the moon, whether that's FPTP, electoral colleges, or Westminster holding the key to Sindyref2. I'm a strong believer in that, perhaps not as absolutist as HYUFD, but he's not far wrong on that particular aspect of his rigid worldview. Get over it.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
I get that point of view, I don't agree with all of it, and obviously the main thrust. But I can see where you are coming from.
More to the point, thank you for reading the pieces and taking the time to analyse them.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Who doesn't love reading praise about themselves?
Hint hint.
That is a wonderful post. I don't know how you do it so often.
I've made a mistake asking for it - now I'll never trust praise recieved again. Oh the agony of unintended consequences.
Yep, silly mistake. Speaking personally my 14051 likes have passed me by completely. Barely even noticed.
Really nothing much there if that's it. Levelling up seems to have become all privately owned rental properties must a band C or above energy efficiency rating - love to know how you get there with a 1920 two up two down terrace house.
Can anyone tell me the significance of the Peter Aldous call for resignation? I've not heard his name mentioned previously as a rebel so I'm curious.
Re. the post below about Johnson's chances of survival to 2024, it's certainly possible. But I don't think that should be lumped together with the chances of a Conservative victory in 2024. They're two different issues and collating them could lead to betting losses. I base that remark on the empirically record-breaking negative ratings for Johnson.
I also think, more anecdotally, that Johnson is his own worst enemy. He is character-flawed so, no, I don't think things are going to get better to coin a well-known phrase from another era.
It's not a huge surprise. He has been fairly critical of Johnson, backed Gove in 2019, isn't a household name even in his own household etc.
I guess the main interest here is whether there is a coordinated effort to work on a drip-drip of letters - a sort of Chinese water torture - or whether Aldous has unilaterally just said "sod it".
One aspect of note here is that Aldous shouldn't really have a major concern about his own seat. It was Labour 1997-2010 but he's made it very safe since.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
Unfortunately Trump supporters are simply right wing fanatics. Those of us with any sort of historical perspective can see it for what it is. I just heard that Boris Johnson stands by his remarks about Starmer even though it has been totally discredited by EVERYONE who who knows the story.
The BBC said it was something posted on a far right website a few years ago. Now we hear Johnson's running with it
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
And you appear to be comparing Boris to Churchill - and anyone who might replace him to someone who might make peace with Hitler.
It's fairly clear who is the ass.
Absolutely not. BJ isn't 1/100th of the man WSC was. But plenty of people called him the things they are calling BJ today.
IOW you admit your slur about Max was nonsense.
Nope, I think if you start passing moral judgements on someone you don't know for their political views, then I think you are wrong Actually, I'd use a much stronger word. This whole moral superiority thing is annoying.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
Unfortunately Trump supporters are simply right wing fanatics. Those of us with any sort of historical perspective can see it for what it is. I just heard that Boris Johnson stands by his remarks about Starmer even though it has been totally discredited by EVERYONE who who knows the story.
The BBC said it was something posted on a far right website a few years ago. Now we hear Johnson's running with it
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Who doesn't love reading praise about themselves?
Hint hint.
That is a wonderful post. I don't know how you do it so often.
I've made a mistake asking for it - now I'll never trust praise recieved again. Oh the agony of unintended consequences.
Yep, silly mistake. Speaking personally my 14051 likes have passed me by completely. Barely even noticed.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
And you appear to be comparing Boris to Churchill - and anyone who might replace him to someone who might make peace with Hitler.
It's fairly clear who is the ass.
Absolutely not. BJ isn't 1/100th of the man WSC was. But plenty of people called him the things they are calling BJ today.
IOW you admit your slur about Max was nonsense.
Nope, I think if you start passing moral judgements on someone you don't know for their political views, then I think you are wrong Actually, I'd use a much stronger word. This whole moral superiority thing is annoying.
And, yes, I include you in that camp.
You still haven't laid out your argument that wanting to dump Boris is the same as wanting to keep Neville Chamberlain around, please do, I'm interested to see the logic.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
I get that point of view, I don't agree with all of it, and obviously the main thrust. But I can see where you are coming from.
More to the point, thank you for reading the pieces and taking the time to analyse them.
On the narrow point of whether it was a coup, I agree with you, it wasn't in any normal definition of the word.
Yet, so what? Trump encouraged hundreds of tooled up violent goons to storm the very heart of US democracy because he couldn't accept that he'd been beaten. It was the most disgraceful affront to the democratic process in modern US history.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
And you appear to be comparing Boris to Churchill - and anyone who might replace him to someone who might make peace with Hitler.
It's fairly clear who is the ass.
Absolutely not. BJ isn't 1/100th of the man WSC was. But plenty of people called him the things they are calling BJ today.
IOW you admit your slur about Max was nonsense.
Nope, I think if you start passing moral judgements on someone you don't know for their political views, then I think you are wrong Actually, I'd use a much stronger word. This whole moral superiority thing is annoying.
And, yes, I include you in that camp.
If you think no-one should pass moral judgement on people's political views then you are clearly a numpty.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
Explain your thought process behind this? It doesn't follow at all.
Just got off a call, hence the delay.
Many people in 1940 considered WSC to be the BJ of the day - incompetent, a grifter to the point of disreputable, a drunk and many things beside, including a political failure. If his career had ended in 1940, he would have been forgotten by now. Halifax, on the other day, was considered someone whose behaviour was, in many ways, beyond reproach. In fact, he was called "The Holy Fox".
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Who doesn't love reading praise about themselves?
Hint hint.
That is a wonderful post. I don't know how you do it so often.
I've made a mistake asking for it - now I'll never trust praise recieved again. Oh the agony of unintended consequences.
Yep, silly mistake. Speaking personally my 14051 likes have passed me by completely. Barely even noticed.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
In hindsight, Farooq, I'd say you are right and it seems to be an increasingly widely held view, even if it lacked some of the ingredients we normally associate with coups.
I note that Mr Ed, who spent much of the post Potus election ramping Trump defeat-reversals then equivocating over Trump's role in January 6, will continue to vote for him. It makes you wonder what Trump would have to do to lose his vote, but I can't say I'm hugely surprised.
Given I replied directly to your question when you asked it, the courteous thing to do was to at least make a direct response, rather than post something upwards in a separate message. Not a good look on your character (since we are talking about character today).
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
Unfortunately Trump supporters are simply right wing fanatics. Those of us with any sort of historical perspective can see it for what it is. I just heard that Boris Johnson stands by his remarks about Starmer even though it has been totally discredited by EVERYONE who who knows the story.
The BBC said it was something posted on a far right website a few years ago. Now we hear Johnson's running with it
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Who doesn't love reading praise about themselves?
Hint hint.
That is a wonderful post. I don't know how you do it so often.
I've made a mistake asking for it - now I'll never trust praise recieved again. Oh the agony of unintended consequences.
Yep, silly mistake. Speaking personally my 14051 likes have passed me by completely. Barely even noticed.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
Doesn't your comment actually hint at one of the of the reasons he might do it (other than pure distraction which is surely an element of it)?
There will be some people who say "well, he's the PM so perhaps he has information not in the public domain..." He doesn't, of course - he's just an incorrigible bullsh1tter - but there is certainly a constituency of people out there who think that way.
On the ComRes poll, I watch the Lab + Green vote share closely to make a guess at Labour's relative strength and 47% doesn't suggest a Blairite surge in support (obviously) but of course that doesn't really matter under FPTP.
I have no strong feeling for Aaron Bell either way, I don't know him, and don't really remember him as a poster when he was Tissue Price.
Is there any reason why he commands such adulation among a contingent of PBers? Why is this hero-worship extended to him and not other politicians who have walked these halls, such as Yvette Cooper, Denis McShane, Louise Bagshaw and Nick Palmer himself?
He was a poster who understood betting before he was an MP
That's the difference.
Assume the same applies to Nick, who has a degree (?) in maths and is a former world champion at Diplomacy. Yet he seems to draw no such adulation. Perhaps it's a twist on the old adage that people become better posters when they are not posting?
The difference is that Nick was an MP when he started posting here, whereas Bell was a poster that became a MP.
It's no wonder us politico wannabes admire Tissue Price.
Yes, Bell (Tissue Price) was a regular poster here for some while before he even put himself forward for parliament. He worked for Bet365 and I remember him first and foremost as an astute commentator on betting matters. I honestly recall less about his political posts which suggests they were neither plentiful nor extreme.
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
Indeed so. His profile shows that he still reads, though.
Who doesn't love reading praise about themselves?
Hint hint.
That is a wonderful post. I don't know how you do it so often.
I've made a mistake asking for it - now I'll never trust praise recieved again. Oh the agony of unintended consequences.
Yep, silly mistake. Speaking personally my 14051 likes have passed me by completely. Barely even noticed.
Hmmm, 3:1 or thereabouts
Just an observation
Much more like 2.915:1 but who's counting?
Who, indeed, has time for such trivia?
I can assure you that if you have spent the entire day writing an opinion on conveyancing negligence you can find almost anything interesting.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
In hindsight, Farooq, I'd say you are right and it seems to be an increasingly widely held view, even if it lacked some of the ingredients we normally associate with coups.
Trump is such a chopper. This attempt was never going to succeed. Had he accepted his defeat with good grace and wished his successor well, he’d be a racing certainty to win in 2024.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
Doesn't your comment actually hint at one of the of the reasons he might do it (other than pure distraction which is surely an element of it)?
There will be some people who say "well, he's the PM so perhaps he has information not in the public domain..." He doesn't, of course - he's just an incorrigible bullsh1tter - but there is certainly a constituency of people out there who think that way.
Oh quite possibly, which makes it all the more shameful, of course. It is an abuse of office (and Parliamentary privilege). The Speaker is absolutely right to call him out on it.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
And the calculated pitch rolling - to declare a loss as a win - from months out.
On the ComRes poll, I watch the Lab + Green vote share closely to make a guess at Labour's relative strength and 47% doesn't suggest a Blairite surge in support (obviously) but of course that doesn't really matter under FPTP.
It's probably more telling to look at 'the Traffic Light Alliance' which in this case adds up to 56%, very much in line with other recent polls.
Greens being squeezed in a couple of recent polls. It suggests opinion is hardening up on a few sides: people are becoming more convinced by Starmer, and some Tory don't knows are returning to the fold and hoping partygate blows over.
Still seem to be in a roughly 60-65% anti-Tory range.
Anything she says on the subject is slightly undermined by her being another one of his Useful Idiots.
That's not fair at all. I would put Salmond in that camp without hesitation, what with his show on RT and all that. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if some SNP MPs are in Putin's pocket (I also think this about the other main parties of Britain and Northern Ireland). But it really, really doesn't ring true for Sturgeon. I mean, just read the damn article. She's spot on.
I genuinely don't have a problem with people wanting Scottish independence, I really don't. If it is just an excuse (as it seems with a couple of posters on here) to vent their anti-English prejudice/racism then that is another matter.
The problem they have is that they are advancing yet another one of Putin's pet foreign policy objectives. In that sense she falls into that category.
I note that Mr Ed, who spent much of the post Potus election ramping Trump defeat-reversals then equivocating over Trump's role in January 6, will continue to vote for him. It makes you wonder what Trump would have to do to lose his vote, but I can't say I'm hugely surprised.
Given I replied directly to your question when you asked it, the courteous thing to do was to at least make a direct response, rather than post something upwards in a separate message. Not a good look on your character (since we are talking about character today).
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
That fat little bloke, you remember him? He that is the only leading politician of these islands with perhaps a more atrocious reputation than Boris Johnson, and was described by his own QC as "a bully and a sex pest" told everyone it was a "once in a generation opportunity". I believe he used to lead the SNP and was First Minister, so I guess he knew what he was saying.
Froim the context, it was quite clear that it was at the end of a 'generation'; we had been waiting that long and more; but obiter dicta are not law, by definition so to speak. Nor is it consistent for you to pick and choose from the sayings of someone whom you obviously despise.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
And you appear to be comparing Boris to Churchill - and anyone who might replace him to someone who might make peace with Hitler.
It's fairly clear who is the ass.
Absolutely not. BJ isn't 1/100th of the man WSC was. But plenty of people called him the things they are calling BJ today.
IOW you admit your slur about Max was nonsense.
Nope, I think if you start passing moral judgements on someone you don't know for their political views, then I think you are wrong Actually, I'd use a much stronger word. This whole moral superiority thing is annoying.
And, yes, I include you in that camp.
Rather depends what the views are and how they are promoted.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
Doesn't your comment actually hint at one of the of the reasons he might do it (other than pure distraction which is surely an element of it)?
There will be some people who say "well, he's the PM so perhaps he has information not in the public domain..." He doesn't, of course - he's just an incorrigible bullsh1tter - but there is certainly a constituency of people out there who think that way.
Oh quite possibly, which makes it all the more shameful, of course. It is an abuse of office (and Parliamentary privilege). The Speaker is absolutely right to call him out on it.
Except he hasn't, he finds it not to be out of order, just not very nice
So presumably in an exchange "You are a facilitator of child molesters" "That is a lie" the first claim is fine, the second can get you suspended. Funny old world.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
You usually are quite level headed Max but you've gone a bit swivel eyed with that comment. You are probably one of those who thinks January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and World War I x20 - oh , and probably Auschwitz on top.
In any event, you read my sentence wrong. I wasn't saying it's a legitimate defence itself, it was saying that would probably a defence Boris would / could use to muddy the waters. See what I wrote in reply to Nick P about why I thought BJ made his remarks.
January 6th did more damage to American than Pearl Harbour. All the Japanese achieved with Pearl Harbour was absolute unanimity among Americans that the Japanese (and the rest of the Axis powers) needed to be stepped on.
January 6th actual damaged American in fundamental ways.
9/11 was a couple of building being knocked down - the stupid reaction damaged America greatly.
I think the 10,000+ (and their families) who died directly and indirectly due to 9/11 plus the ones who died at Pearl Harbor and the Pacific campaign afterwards might disagree with you.
As for 1/6 (in the American way), as I mentioned just now, Matt Talibi and Glenn Greenwald have explained far better than I can do why this idea of Jan 6th was a coup is not only a joke but fundamentally dangerous for American democracy:
But, hey, it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to praise Dick Cheney - a man who did more to undermine American democracy in his time probably since Nixon at least and possibly McCarthy - because he was against Jan 6th. That shows how fucked up the Democrats have become.
Your grubby defence of those who tried to overthrow the government is quite alarming, that you support Boris reaffirms my decision to leave the Tory party and wanting him gone.
Thank God you weren't in the War Cabinet in the 1940. You would have voted for the saintly Lord Halifax over WSC.
And don't be such a holier-than-thou pompous ass.
Explain your thought process behind this? It doesn't follow at all.
Just got off a call, hence the delay.
Many people in 1940 considered WSC to be the BJ of the day - incompetent, a grifter to the point of disreputable, a drunk and many things beside, including a political failure. If his career had ended in 1940, he would have been forgotten by now. Halifax, on the other day, was considered someone whose behaviour was, in many ways, beyond reproach. In fact, he was called "The Holy Fox".
But that doesn't follow at all because Winston Churchill was an honourable person. Boris is a liar. Every time he opens his mouth he lies. His attack on Keir Starmer yesterday was another in a series of lies. I don't care about the other stuff, I care that he continually lies and cheats to stay in office just one more day. I care that he's running a permanent whipping operation from Number 10 and burning through political capital to stay in power rather than actually get the country growing faster and getting a handle on the now medium term energy crisis.
Yesterday we had that farce of a session in the house and because Boris was, once again, burning through political capital to stay in power the PM of the UK was unable to speak to Putin on the eve of war. That degrades the office of the PM. He's put his personal survival ahead of the interests of the nation and now we're wholly reliant on France to represent European interests with Putin. Who really knows what Macron and Putin talked about? Who knows what Macron promised Putin?
We have lost our chance to have a sovereign meeting of equals with Russia because the PM was too busy covering up his lies and failures.
So no, it doesn't follow that wanting Boris out is the same as saying Churchill should have been prevented from taking over. In fact I'd say those who want him out are standing up for what's right, and that's something Churchill did in 1940 despite the easy option being appeasement just as those Tory MPs who aren't sending their letters in are taking the easy option of knuckling under.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
Unfortunately Trump supporters are simply right wing fanatics. Those of us with any sort of historical perspective can see it for what it is. I just heard that Boris Johnson stands by his remarks about Starmer even though it has been totally discredited by EVERYONE who who knows the story.
The BBC said it was something posted on a far right website a few years ago. Now we hear Johnson's running with it
Bringing far right goonery to the House of Commons. Lovely jubbly.
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
Nope. It was absolutely moronic to include them in the same line, so it is now almost impossible to benchmark them. Which innumerate idiot in Whitehall thought this was ever a good idea?
We might as well bin the positive tests measure full stop now and just look at the hospitalisation data (although even these are no longer a like-for-like comparison due to the increased number of 'cases' feeding the hospital funnel).
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
I have to say, on glancing yesterday, the seem to have made a sensible job of it, such that we shouldn't get a spurious "rising numbers" panic from the media due to the effects of adding in these numbers.
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
And the calculated pitch rolling - to declare a loss as a win - from months out.
And the thing is, he fixated on the wrong thing. He'd have had a stronger case claiming that the unprecedented four-year media campaign against him and/or Zuckerberg's millions made the election not free and/or fair rather than the insane claims that the ballot count didn't match the ballots cast.
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
I have to say, on glancing yesterday, the seem to have made a sensible job of it, such that we shouldn't get a spurious "rising numbers" panic from the media due to the effects of adding in these numbers.
How so when they are – as far as I can ascertain – bundled into the same data line, rather than sequestered?
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
Doesn't your comment actually hint at one of the of the reasons he might do it (other than pure distraction which is surely an element of it)?
There will be some people who say "well, he's the PM so perhaps he has information not in the public domain..." He doesn't, of course - he's just an incorrigible bullsh1tter - but there is certainly a constituency of people out there who think that way.
Oh quite possibly, which makes it all the more shameful, of course. It is an abuse of office (and Parliamentary privilege). The Speaker is absolutely right to call him out on it.
Except he hasn't, he finds it not to be out of order, just not very nice
So presumably in an exchange "You are a facilitator of child molesters" "That is a lie" the first claim is fine, the second can get you suspended. Funny old world.
I just don't get why politicians as a class want to make themselves look even more ridiculous, absurd and pointless than they are. But they put considerable effort into it.
Boris already killing what was left of his credibility with MPs to whom he promised a voice in policy making.
Oh god. Get rid
He's shit scared that Carrie will withhold sex, everything takes second place to that drive for Boris getting laid so all UK policy will be what Carrie wants.
Anyone able to interpret the new COVID infection numbers vs the old series? How is the trend looking?
Nope. It was absolutely moronic to include them in the same line, so it is now almost impossible to benchmark them. Which innumerate idiot in Whitehall thought this was ever a good idea?
We might as well bin the positive tests measure full stop now and just look at the hospitalisation data (although even these are no longer a like-for-like comparison due to the increased number of 'cases' feeding the hospital funnel).
The problem is not in the dashboard, but in their source data.
Trying to get hundreds of arrogant, entitled stakeholders to do the same thing. Cat herding...
Sorry, Nick P and Tissue Price but my all-time favourite pb MP was the fantasmogorical Stewart Jackson (then) from Peterborough. Moderation exemplified in outlook, benignly measured and restrained in expression. We will not see his like again.
Lol! You do wonder what Peterborough has done to deserve the representatives it has had over the last 20 years or so.
A dispassionate observer of Peterborough might suggest it got what it deserves?
England is currently getting what she deserves. Unclear why the Welsh, Irish and Scots also have to suffer.
It's called the Union. Scots chose to stick with it....for a generation.
Your modern attempt at a Zinoviev Letter. No 'generation' in the Edinburgh Agreement or the Ballot paper. So that is another word for Anabob's Index Expurgatorius.
That fat little bloke, you remember him? He that is the only leading politician of these islands with perhaps a more atrocious reputation than Boris Johnson, and was described by his own QC as "a bully and a sex pest" told everyone it was a "once in a generation opportunity". I believe he used to lead the SNP and was First Minister, so I guess he knew what he was saying.
Froim the context, it was quite clear that it was at the end of a 'generation'; we had been waiting that long and more; but obiter dicta are not law, by definition so to speak. Nor is it consistent for you to pick and choose from the sayings of someone whom you obviously despise.
Sorry, but what utter nonsense. It is perfectly consistent. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that one cannot quote the words of a politician one does not like to illustrate a point. Of all those favouring Scottish independence on PB then you are normally the most rational, but I think the "picking and choosing" is your habit here, not mine.
I see that Bas Javid, a senior bod in the Met, is following Cyclefree's 10 Stages of a Crisis playbook in his comments just now on the IOPC Report - he's at stage 4.
To its credit the IOPC has said that this is a significant problem not just 1 or 2 bad apples.
And Priti Patel is saying that there is a problem with the culture in the police
SWEETIE, WHAT TOOK YOU SO FUCKING LONG TO REALISE???
Get one of your SPADS to read this forum and my headers on this topic for the last 3 years and you'd have known this for some time and, even what you need to do about it.
Oh why do I bother? I'd have more fun beating my head against a brick wall. Probably more useful as well.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
No, because reasons.
(Actually, HYUFD has a point that, for all Johnson will pull the Conservative brand over a cliff, there's nobody else out there who will do much better. Short of inventing a time machine, going back to 2019 and not doing the Great Purge, there's not a lot to be done about that.
As with some of the other bad things coming down the track, the point of no return for preventing damage has already passed.)
Comments
He explicitly stated that he stopped posting here when he started the process of standing for Parliament. I think we can all understand and respect that.
As for the next election, British elections have become popularity contests between the two potential PMs, and very few recover from the depths of unpopularity Johnson has reached. It would take something for Starmer to tank to that level.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
I think he has a 40% chance of surviving 2022 if he does that he will likely make it to GE2024
Assuming he loses that your bet wins. I suspect a narrow win will also result in him going and you winning.
I think the most likely scenario is a decent size Tory Majority which is a danger for your bet but maybe a 2 time win is his legacy and he decides to go out on top
Keep your fingers crossed for next few weeks
A bit like NPXMP on the other side.
If all Tories were like him, it would make me reconsider tbh.
Unless people and what they "deserve" are defined by their nationality or ethnicity, then an English non-Tory voter has no lesser claim to exemption from just deserts than an SNP-voting Scot. Just as an anti-Putin Russian no more deserves to suffer under his autocracy than a Ukrainian.
Hint hint.
I must write something rude about him. It will make him laugh.
That should do it..
Hence the Bevin Boys, for those who were called up to be coal-miners, like (ahem) J Saville.
56% voted to Remain, 44% to Leave.
In Hoyles we have Mr Barraclough.
What we need is Mr Mackay.
Bring back Burcow
And that those "Conservatives" who even now continue to defend Boris Johnson, by praising him with faint damn and other such sophistry, are either ignorant dupes, or conscious wreckers of the cause they claim to uphold?
Sure sounds like it.
https://news.sky.com/story/maida-vale-motorist-who-hit-knifeman-with-car-released-without-charge-12530428
Chap released without charge.
I find it incredibly hard to judge, because the question comes down to the decisions of a few hundred Tory MPs.
Thinking back to when it has happened in the past (e.g. 1990, 2019) and when it hasn't, but arguably should have (e.g. 1995, 2009), a change has occurred when there has been a clear policy change to implement with the change of leader, and a clear candidate to take over to make that change backed by a majority.
There doesn't seem to be a pressing issue of policy - we're simply in the realms of the leader being unpopular for being who they are - and there isn't a clear alternative who would make everything better.
This creates a great deal of uncertainty for Tory MPs. It might not be clear to them that acting would make anything that much better - particularly given Johnson's proven provenance as an election winner.
I think they will find reasons to put off action. And then there will be a GE.
Re. the post below about Johnson's chances of survival to 2024, it's certainly possible. But I don't think that should be lumped together with the chances of a Conservative victory in 2024. They're two different issues and collating them could lead to betting losses. I base that remark on the empirically record-breaking negative ratings for Johnson.
I also think, more anecdotally, that Johnson is his own worst enemy. He is character-flawed so, no, I don't think things are going to get better to coin a well-known phrase from another era.
I actually think Hoyle is doing a pretty good job in really difficult circumstances where we have a PM of exceptional mendacity, and quite a few MPs on all benches who want to make a name for themselves in a social media age by deliberately pushing at the rules.
Peter Aldous was born in Ipswich, Suffolk.[1] He has lived in the north of the county for most of his life.[3] His family own farms near Ipswich and the market town of Halesworth.[2] He was educated at Harrow School and graduated from the University of Reading with a degree in Land Management in 1982.[1]
Before his election Aldous was as a chartered surveyor in Norwich.[2][1] He is a keen squash player. He supports Ipswich Town F.C..[3]
Johnson his own worst enemy? Not while I'm alive.
Do I think there should be another one? No, because those of us that wanted Remain lost and we should respect that (whether leavers would if it were the other way around is another matter!) even though it is still a pile of shit. Another referendum would be a continuation of division. The same applies to Scotland. The Nats knew what Salmond said about the "once in a generation". They should wait for a generation to pass and then they can try again.
Boris is going strong on this.
ETA the dead cat technique in action
Most of the rest of us think that it was a blunder by Boris and it's everyone else who is going strong on Johnson for the mistake.
I bow to no man in my defence of the honour 17-19 parliament, the votes around Brexit were almost entirely in line with manifestos, their interpretation (no deal/bad deal was a defensible ERG rallying cry, as was absolute insistence on SM type Brexit by Labour and anti-Brexit platforms were honoured), known individual platforms (e.g. Lexiters, ERG, 2nd referendumers). Only the Tories who ended up voting against all forms of Brexit broke that, and that barely spread beyond TIG. You may think some positions were disingenuous, but ultimately they weren't tested. Nearly everyone held their lines, and nearly everyone's lines were legitimate and defensible, not least by GE17.
There's a separate discussion on whether the politics was done well, I remember doing an order of blame for different outcomes, but that was a discussion of tactics rather than principle.
But, if you bow to that, then bowing to GE 19 as the ultimate arbiter of Brexit has to follow, because as the dementia tax has its role in confounding Brexit in 2017, or Corbyn's toxicity had its role in GE 2019, ultimately the electorate saw and had their way.
More fundamentally, you may campaign to change the rules but any such campaign will stand or fall by the rules: politics and democracy is always played on the rules as they are, and calling foul on that is howling at the moon, whether that's FPTP, electoral colleges, or Westminster holding the key to Sindyref2. I'm a strong believer in that, perhaps not as absolutist as HYUFD, but he's not far wrong on that particular aspect of his rigid worldview. Get over it.
More to the point, thank you for reading the pieces and taking the time to analyse them.
I guess the main interest here is whether there is a coordinated effort to work on a drip-drip of letters - a sort of Chinese water torture - or whether Aldous has unilaterally just said "sod it".
One aspect of note here is that Aldous shouldn't really have a major concern about his own seat. It was Labour 1997-2010 but he's made it very safe since.
The BBC said it was something posted on a far right website a few years ago. Now we hear Johnson's running with it
And, yes, I include you in that camp.
And I am not certain he is
Just an observation
Yet, so what? Trump encouraged hundreds of tooled up violent goons to storm the very heart of US democracy because he couldn't accept that he'd been beaten. It was the most disgraceful affront to the democratic process in modern US history.
Yet you would still vote for him again.
Many people in 1940 considered WSC to be the BJ of the day - incompetent, a grifter to the point of disreputable, a drunk and many things beside, including a political failure. If his career had ended in 1940, he would have been forgotten by now. Halifax, on the other day, was considered someone whose behaviour was, in many ways, beyond reproach. In fact, he was called "The Holy Fox".
11% ahead with Labour on 44%. Looking good.
There will be some people who say "well, he's the PM so perhaps he has information not in the public domain..." He doesn't, of course - he's just an incorrigible bullsh1tter - but there is certainly a constituency of people out there who think that way.
Still seem to be in a roughly 60-65% anti-Tory range.
The problem they have is that they are advancing yet another one of Putin's pet foreign policy objectives. In that sense she falls into that category.
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
So presumably in an exchange "You are a facilitator of child molesters" "That is a lie" the first claim is fine, the second can get you suspended. Funny old world.
Yesterday we had that farce of a session in the house and because Boris was, once again, burning through political capital to stay in power the PM of the UK was unable to speak to Putin on the eve of war. That degrades the office of the PM. He's put his personal survival ahead of the interests of the nation and now we're wholly reliant on France to represent European interests with Putin. Who really knows what Macron and Putin talked about? Who knows what Macron promised Putin?
We have lost our chance to have a sovereign meeting of equals with Russia because the PM was too busy covering up his lies and failures.
So no, it doesn't follow that wanting Boris out is the same as saying Churchill should have been prevented from taking over. In fact I'd say those who want him out are standing up for what's right, and that's something Churchill did in 1940 despite the easy option being appeasement just as those Tory MPs who aren't sending their letters in are taking the easy option of knuckling under.
Nope. It was absolutely moronic to include them in the same line, so it is now almost impossible to benchmark them. Which innumerate idiot in Whitehall thought this was ever a good idea?
We might as well bin the positive tests measure full stop now and just look at the hospitalisation data (although even these are no longer a like-for-like comparison due to the increased number of 'cases' feeding the hospital funnel).
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
Trying to get hundreds of arrogant, entitled stakeholders to do the same thing. Cat herding...
To its credit the IOPC has said that this is a significant problem not just 1 or 2 bad apples.
And Priti Patel is saying that there is a problem with the culture in the police
SWEETIE, WHAT TOOK YOU SO FUCKING LONG TO REALISE???
Get one of your SPADS to read this forum and my headers on this topic for the last 3 years and you'd have known this for some time and, even what you need to do about it.
Oh why do I bother? I'd have more fun beating my head against a brick wall. Probably more useful as well.
(Actually, HYUFD has a point that, for all Johnson will pull the Conservative brand over a cliff, there's nobody else out there who will do much better. Short of inventing a time machine, going back to 2019 and not doing the Great Purge, there's not a lot to be done about that.
As with some of the other bad things coming down the track, the point of no return for preventing damage has already passed.)
Mornington Crescent.