Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
Except they mentioned the very thing Boris did which had nothing to do with lockdowns. So even though that was the principal reason they were there, presumably, it simply is not viable to disassociate it from Boris's remarks - it's too much of a coincidence.
That you suggest if it was Boris they'd have mentioned the drinking actually makes that point - because that is the news, they'd use that - because Boris tried to slur Keir, they used that. The method of harrassment was caused by the remarks, at least in part.
As he was not an mp, what’s the issue? Genuine question.
Mebbe this bit...
Sir Eddie v candid about PM’s views, suggesting he did not want ban but was “caught” between pressure from Tories and US: “This PM is not anti-China and is not Donald Trump.” Added PM “believes in good relationships with China. He is not coming from a negative place in any way”. https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1490807768307187718
Not much control then when today the UK joined the EU and Estonia in complaining to the WTO over China.
The danger the Tory Party should be less blind about is the potency that (however arguably unjustly in many cases) stories from 15 months ago are having in damaging Johnson, the Govt and the Tory Party as a whole. These are not isolated recent stories that will just blow over with the next news cycle. Because there will be an endless supply of them because they are symptomatic of the way that Johnson operates and "runs" his Government. And it is also, unusually, the fact that many of them emanate from a long time ago that makes them worse. Particularly the party stories, which would have felt very different if reported in May 2020 than they are now. In fact - as has been pointed out - in many cases they WERE reported in May 2020, to almost no effect at all. Because then there was a sense of imminent emergence from the first lockdown, and most people were already pushing the boundaries of what they could do.
They can't be made to go away or apologised for. There is also no sense that Johnson can promise "change". Somebody who has operated in a certain way his whole life can't suddenly adopt a completely new approach. He wouldn't know how, even if he was inclined to try.
The ones who have already called the comments disgraceful in the Conservative MP ranks have already publicly expressed opposition to him.
Do we actually have any polling on the Savile comments and what people think of them? Unless a lot of Conservative MPs seriously think this is hurting them in their constituencies, they will not move against BJ.
Are you still supporting him? I have some respect for such a contrarian stance, but surely it's time for him to go?
Support is too strong.
What I care about is someone comes in and supports a proper levelling up agenda. That is not going to be Sunak or Truss. It's not going to be Mourdant or Hunt or Tom Tugging or whatever he is called. I doubt it will be Johnson. But at least if the bulk of his Red Wall MPs have him by the balls, there is a chance he is forced into doing something meaningful. I don't really care who is the vehicle for change, just as long as it happens.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
That's a straw man distraction. I've been to the Conservative conference in Manchester (as an NGO standholder), mildly amused to carry a copy of the conference agenda booklet with CONSERVATIVE in big letters at the top, and the delegate badge slung round my neck. If anyone was hating me, they didn't show it.
What you're seeing at the moment is the separation between traditional Conservative belief - maintain law and order, respect tradition, try to run the country well, stuff vs. New Populist Conservative. You're right that the former tend not to have any special interest in levelling up. But they do to avoid stirring up demons. It's the same division that you get on the left between socialists who are earnestly concerned with inequality and foreign aid vs populist Trots who like a good riot.
I think that if your party goes for a majority for New Populist Conservatism there will be a rough ride ahead, with multiple defections.
I think that is right re the split. In that case, I would imagine the RW and the rural parts of the Conservative party would stick together, and the suburban MPs would gravitate to some form of coalition with the Lib Dems, although I think that also triggers a possible realignment of LD politics. BTW, I also think Labour is in danger of being split in a similar way (urbanites to the Greens, for example).
Where you are wrong is in the phrase "But they do to avoid stirring up demons". That's the phrase - and apologies Nick because I respect you a lot - of someone who has a very comfortable position and doesn't want to face the facts that, for many people in this country, life is sh1t. The demons have already been stirred. People like Trump and (to a degree) Johnson are symptoms, not causes. A well-functioning democracy that looks after all sections of society should not have a need of such people. They exist because many people have been f**ked over and they don't know to whom to turn.
Those particular demons you're describing are the result of doctrinaire fundamentalist capitalism, which Johnson and Trump also represent. They have very successfully stoked culture war and identity demons, sometimes with the unwitting help of less wise parts of the left, to distract attraction from those other demons.
Agreed. Whilst I think Thatcher did some good things, I also think she was a disaster in a fair few ways.
What you also fail to mention is the left has played its part. Portraying large swathes of the population as ignorant hillbillies / 'Gammons' who are racist, ignorant thugs, and claiming that they are automatically privileged just because of the colour of their skin is not exactly helping the situation.
Britain Trump, right down to using our own little cadre of QAnon
Off topic, Foxy, do you think Rodgers’ days are numbered at Leicester? They got a proper hammering yesterday by a lower league side in Forest (although admittedly Forest are usually considered the biggest club in the region, they haven’t been in the top flight for decades).
Leicester looked absolutely dismal. Just couldn’t handle a partisan crowd by the looks of things.
Worth a bet on Rodgers going?
I think he will last the season. Khun Top (the owner) was at the match yesterday, and saw it all. He is not a sacking owner, unless it looks seriously like relegation, and it isn't that bad. The payoff would soak up a fair bit of the summer transfer budget.
There is a deficit of on field leadership and a number of players are performing well under their best, notably Soyuncu, Tielemans and Ndidi, currently our senior CB and Central midfielders. The tactics and game plan are turgid, and too complex for the players, who seem quite uncertain of what to do, apart from pass sideways and back.
Liverpool and West Ham this week, so I think it will be a rough week, but Rogers will survive and limp on until May.
@Liveuamap Putin: We understand that the conventional power of NATO is more than Russia's. But Russia is the top nuclear power. And there will be no winners in the war (in case of Ukraine in NATO, and will attempt to return Crimea with force)
I dislike Johnson and would like to see him removed from office, but the Starmer/Savile thing is not going to be the end of him.
Worth pointing out that Boris Johnson is pretty sensible compared to Jeremy Corbyn, someone whom many people on here voted for. Corbyn's ideas about Russia spring to mind immediately as being actually dangerous.
Not really worth pointing out. Corbyn is an excuse that has slipped into history. He's not coming back.
There's no longer a choice between Dumb and Dumber, there's only a choice between Dumb and Someone Better.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
Except they mentioned the very thing Boris did which had nothing to do with lockdowns. So even though that was the principal reason they were there, presumably, it simply is not viable to disassociate it from Boris's remarks - it's too much of a coincidence.
That you suggest if it was Boris they'd have mentioned the drinking actually makes that point - because that is the news, they'd use that - because Boris tried to slur Keir, they used that. The method of harrassment was caused by the remarks, at least in part.
It's missing the point though.
The protestors didn't go after him because of the Savile comments, they went after him because - like most other politicians - he was seen as a pro-lockdown advocate. If he was anti-lockdown and BJ had made the Savile comments, chances are he would have been left alone or even cheered.
For the protestors, the Savile comments were just a useful cherry to put on top of the cake.
The ones who have already called the comments disgraceful in the Conservative MP ranks have already publicly expressed opposition to him.
Do we actually have any polling on the Savile comments and what people think of them? Unless a lot of Conservative MPs seriously think this is hurting them in their constituencies, they will not move against BJ.
Are you still supporting him? I have some respect for such a contrarian stance, but surely it's time for him to go?
Support is too strong.
What I care about is someone comes in and supports a proper levelling up agenda. That is not going to be Sunak or Truss. It's not going to be Mourdant or Hunt or Tom Tugging or whatever he is called. I doubt it will be Johnson. But at least if the bulk of his Red Wall MPs have him by the balls, there is a chance he is forced into doing something meaningful. I don't really care who is the vehicle for change, just as long as it happens.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
That's a straw man distraction. I've been to the Conservative conference in Manchester (as an NGO standholder), mildly amused to carry a copy of the conference agenda booklet with CONSERVATIVE in big letters at the top, and the delegate badge slung round my neck. If anyone was hating me, they didn't show it.
What you're seeing at the moment is the separation between traditional Conservative belief - maintain law and order, respect tradition, try to run the country well, stuff vs. New Populist Conservative. You're right that the former tend not to have any special interest in levelling up. But they do to avoid stirring up demons. It's the same division that you get on the left between socialists who are earnestly concerned with inequality and foreign aid vs populist Trots who like a good riot.
I think that if your party goes for a majority for New Populist Conservatism there will be a rough ride ahead, with multiple defections.
I think that is right re the split. In that case, I would imagine the RW and the rural parts of the Conservative party would stick together, and the suburban MPs would gravitate to some form of coalition with the Lib Dems, although I think that also triggers a possible realignment of LD politics. BTW, I also think Labour is in danger of being split in a similar way (urbanites to the Greens, for example).
Where you are wrong is in the phrase "But they do to avoid stirring up demons". That's the phrase - and apologies Nick because I respect you a lot - of someone who has a very comfortable position and doesn't want to face the facts that, for many people in this country, life is sh1t. The demons have already been stirred. People like Trump and (to a degree) Johnson are symptoms, not causes. A well-functioning democracy that looks after all sections of society should not have a need of such people. They exist because many people have been f**ked over and they don't know to whom to turn.
Those particular demons you're describing are the result of doctrinaire fundamentalist capitalism, which Johnson and Trump also represent. They have very successfully stoked culture war and identity demons, sometimes with the unwitting help of less wise parts of the left, to distract attraction from those other demons.
Agreed. Whilst I think Thatcher did some good things, I also think she was a disaster in a fair few ways.
What you also fail to mention is the left has played its part. Portraying large swathes of the population as ignorant hillbillies / 'Gammons' who are racist, ignorant thugs, and claiming that they are automatically privileged just because of the colour of their skin is not exactly helping the situation.
I did mention the responsibility of part of the left, too, in that polarisation, to be fair.
The ones who have already called the comments disgraceful in the Conservative MP ranks have already publicly expressed opposition to him.
Do we actually have any polling on the Savile comments and what people think of them? Unless a lot of Conservative MPs seriously think this is hurting them in their constituencies, they will not move against BJ.
Are you still supporting him? I have some respect for such a contrarian stance, but surely it's time for him to go?
Support is too strong.
What I care about is someone comes in and supports a proper levelling up agenda. That is not going to be Sunak or Truss. It's not going to be Mourdant or Hunt or Tom Tugging or whatever he is called. I doubt it will be Johnson. But at least if the bulk of his Red Wall MPs have him by the balls, there is a chance he is forced into doing something meaningful. I don't really care who is the vehicle for change, just as long as it happens.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
That's a straw man distraction. I've been to the Conservative conference in Manchester (as an NGO standholder), mildly amused to carry a copy of the conference agenda booklet with CONSERVATIVE in big letters at the top, and the delegate badge slung round my neck. If anyone was hating me, they didn't show it.
What you're seeing at the moment is the separation between traditional Conservative belief - maintain law and order, respect tradition, try to run the country well, stuff vs. New Populist Conservative. You're right that the former tend not to have any special interest in levelling up. But they do to avoid stirring up demons. It's the same division that you get on the left between socialists who are earnestly concerned with inequality and foreign aid vs populist Trots who like a good riot.
I think that if your party goes for a majority for New Populist Conservatism there will be a rough ride ahead, with multiple defections.
I think that is right re the split. In that case, I would imagine the RW and the rural parts of the Conservative party would stick together, and the suburban MPs would gravitate to some form of coalition with the Lib Dems, although I think that also triggers a possible realignment of LD politics. BTW, I also think Labour is in danger of being split in a similar way (urbanites to the Greens, for example).
Where you are wrong is in the phrase "But they do to avoid stirring up demons". That's the phrase - and apologies Nick because I respect you a lot - of someone who has a very comfortable position and doesn't want to face the facts that, for many people in this country, life is sh1t. The demons have already been stirred. People like Trump and (to a degree) Johnson are symptoms, not causes. A well-functioning democracy that looks after all sections of society should not have a need of such people. They exist because many people have been f**ked over and they don't know to whom to turn.
PS Yes, you are right the last sentence is a straw man argument, so I shouldn't have put it in.
For those that missed it, the two-parter on BBC2 iplayer “The decade the rich won” is well worth a watch. None of the parties come out of it well.
9 point lead with YouGov, 10 points with Redfield.
Slightly surprised to see Labour nudging up again - I thought we'd settle on a 6-7 lead for a while. Starmer slightly ahead of Sunak (by 2) as well as Johnson (by 10). Cost of living shouldering its way to the fore now.
The ones who have already called the comments disgraceful in the Conservative MP ranks have already publicly expressed opposition to him.
Do we actually have any polling on the Savile comments and what people think of them? Unless a lot of Conservative MPs seriously think this is hurting them in their constituencies, they will not move against BJ.
Are you still supporting him? I have some respect for such a contrarian stance, but surely it's time for him to go?
Support is too strong.
What I care about is someone comes in and supports a proper levelling up agenda. That is not going to be Sunak or Truss. It's not going to be Mourdant or Hunt or Tom Tugging or whatever he is called. I doubt it will be Johnson. But at least if the bulk of his Red Wall MPs have him by the balls, there is a chance he is forced into doing something meaningful. I don't really care who is the vehicle for change, just as long as it happens.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
That's a straw man distraction. I've been to the Conservative conference in Manchester (as an NGO standholder), mildly amused to carry a copy of the conference agenda booklet with CONSERVATIVE in big letters at the top, and the delegate badge slung round my neck. If anyone was hating me, they didn't show it.
What you're seeing at the moment is the separation between traditional Conservative belief - maintain law and order, respect tradition, try to run the country well, stuff vs. New Populist Conservative. You're right that the former tend not to have any special interest in levelling up. But they do to avoid stirring up demons. It's the same division that you get on the left between socialists who are earnestly concerned with inequality and foreign aid vs populist Trots who like a good riot.
I think that if your party goes for a majority for New Populist Conservatism there will be a rough ride ahead, with multiple defections.
I think that is right re the split. In that case, I would imagine the RW and the rural parts of the Conservative party would stick together, and the suburban MPs would gravitate to some form of coalition with the Lib Dems, although I think that also triggers a possible realignment of LD politics. BTW, I also think Labour is in danger of being split in a similar way (urbanites to the Greens, for example).
Where you are wrong is in the phrase "But they do to avoid stirring up demons". That's the phrase - and apologies Nick because I respect you a lot - of someone who has a very comfortable position and doesn't want to face the facts that, for many people in this country, life is sh1t. The demons have already been stirred. People like Trump and (to a degree) Johnson are symptoms, not causes. A well-functioning democracy that looks after all sections of society should not have a need of such people. They exist because many people have been f**ked over and they don't know to whom to turn.
Those particular demons you're describing are the result of doctrinaire fundamentalist capitalism, which Johnson and Trump also represent. They have very successfully stoked culture war and identity demons, sometimes with the unwitting help of less wise parts of the left, to distract attraction from those other demons.
Agreed. Whilst I think Thatcher did some good things, I also think she was a disaster in a fair few ways.
What you also fail to mention is the left has played its part. Portraying large swathes of the population as ignorant hillbillies / 'Gammons' who are racist, ignorant thugs, and claiming that they are automatically privileged just because of the colour of their skin is not exactly helping the situation.
I did mention the responsibility of part of the left, too, in that polarisation, to be fair.
Mail: First day of Boris's 'grown ups' turns into circus: PM has to defend new comms chief 'Huawei' Harri as he pulls water stunt, reveals details of PM singing Gloria Gaynor's I will Survive and reminders of what he REALLY thinks of Johnson resurface
Angela Rayner was very wrong to describe Tories in general as "scum".
But in the light of tonight's events, I think she could be forgiven if with hindsight she regretted making a general apology for those comments. Her mistake was not to be more discerning. Tories are of course not scum, but a few people who just happen to be Tories are.
"Scum" is now a reasonable description to apply to Johnson (and perhaps also those who use mealy mouthed words to try and defend his lack of apology) as he veers off down the same road as Trump, undermining all norms while thrashing around seeking political survival, like a Terminator falling into a pit of molten metal.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
I was there an hour before it happened and can safely say the few who were gathered definitely looked like nutjobs.
The thing is though, Boris gave them an excuse and validated their conspiracy theory bullshit.
I don't think that would have stopped them mobbing him if they saw him, but the point is... no serious politician, let alone the prime minister, should be feeding these people's delusions.
Angela Rayner was very wrong to describe Tories in general as "scum".
But in the light of tonight's events, I think she could be forgiven if with hindsight she regretted making a general apology for those comments. Her mistake was not to be more discerning. Tories are of course not scum, but a few people who just happen to be Tories are.
"Scum" is now a reasonable description to apply to Johnson (and perhaps also those who use mealy mouthed words to try and defend his lack of apology) as he veers off down the same road as Trump, undermining all norms while thrashing around seeking political survival, like a Terminator falling into a pit of molten metal.
The joke being, the scum attacking SKS were in the main Corbynites, in one case a Corbyn, and probabvly quite dclosely aligned with Angela the Irresistible
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
Except they mentioned the very thing Boris did which had nothing to do with lockdowns. So even though that was the principal reason they were there, presumably, it simply is not viable to disassociate it from Boris's remarks - it's too much of a coincidence.
That you suggest if it was Boris they'd have mentioned the drinking actually makes that point - because that is the news, they'd use that - because Boris tried to slur Keir, they used that. The method of harrassment was caused by the remarks, at least in part.
It's missing the point though.
The protestors didn't go after him because of the Savile comments, they went after him because - like most other politicians - he was seen as a pro-lockdown advocate. If he was anti-lockdown and BJ had made the Savile comments, chances are he would have been left alone or even cheered.
For the protestors, the Savile comments were just a useful cherry to put on top of the cake.
The ones who have already called the comments disgraceful in the Conservative MP ranks have already publicly expressed opposition to him.
Do we actually have any polling on the Savile comments and what people think of them? Unless a lot of Conservative MPs seriously think this is hurting them in their constituencies, they will not move against BJ.
Are you still supporting him? I have some respect for such a contrarian stance, but surely it's time for him to go?
Support is too strong.
What I care about is someone comes in and supports a proper levelling up agenda. That is not going to be Sunak or Truss. It's not going to be Mourdant or Hunt or Tom Tugging or whatever he is called. I doubt it will be Johnson. But at least if the bulk of his Red Wall MPs have him by the balls, there is a chance he is forced into doing something meaningful. I don't really care who is the vehicle for change, just as long as it happens.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
That's a straw man distraction. I've been to the Conservative conference in Manchester (as an NGO standholder), mildly amused to carry a copy of the conference agenda booklet with CONSERVATIVE in big letters at the top, and the delegate badge slung round my neck. If anyone was hating me, they didn't show it.
What you're seeing at the moment is the separation between traditional Conservative belief - maintain law and order, respect tradition, try to run the country well, stuff vs. New Populist Conservative. You're right that the former tend not to have any special interest in levelling up. But they do to avoid stirring up demons. It's the same division that you get on the left between socialists who are earnestly concerned with inequality and foreign aid vs populist Trots who like a good riot.
I think that if your party goes for a majority for New Populist Conservatism there will be a rough ride ahead, with multiple defections.
I think that is right re the split. In that case, I would imagine the RW and the rural parts of the Conservative party would stick together, and the suburban MPs would gravitate to some form of coalition with the Lib Dems, although I think that also triggers a possible realignment of LD politics. BTW, I also think Labour is in danger of being split in a similar way (urbanites to the Greens, for example).
Where you are wrong is in the phrase "But they do to avoid stirring up demons". That's the phrase - and apologies Nick because I respect you a lot - of someone who has a very comfortable position and doesn't want to face the facts that, for many people in this country, life is sh1t. The demons have already been stirred. People like Trump and (to a degree) Johnson are symptoms, not causes. A well-functioning democracy that looks after all sections of society should not have a need of such people. They exist because many people have been f**ked over and they don't know to whom to turn.
Those particular demons you're describing are the result of doctrinaire fundamentalist capitalism, which Johnson and Trump also represent. They have very successfully stoked culture war and identity demons, sometimes with the unwitting help of less wise parts of the left, to distract attraction from those other demons.
Agreed. Whilst I think Thatcher did some good things, I also think she was a disaster in a fair few ways.
What you also fail to mention is the left has played its part. Portraying large swathes of the population as ignorant hillbillies / 'Gammons' who are racist, ignorant thugs, and claiming that they are automatically privileged just because of the colour of their skin is not exactly helping the situation.
I did mention the responsibility of part of the left, too, in that polarisation, to be fair.
You did indeed.
And Starmer himself is not blameless in his parroting of Twitter memes like “the Johnson variant”. Politicians should find a way to get off Twitter and stay off. No good comes from it.
Angela Rayner was very wrong to describe Tories in general as "scum".
But in the light of tonight's events, I think she could be forgiven if with hindsight she regretted making a general apology for those comments. Her mistake was not to be more discerning. Tories are of course not scum, but a few people who just happen to be Tories are.
"Scum" is now a reasonable description to apply to Johnson (and perhaps also those who use mealy mouthed words to try and defend his lack of apology) as he veers off down the same road as Trump, undermining all norms while thrashing around seeking political survival, like a Terminator falling into a pit of molten metal.
Although with Rayner, she took more than a month to apologise unreservedly. Maybe you should give BJ a bit more time.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
Except they mentioned the very thing Boris did which had nothing to do with lockdowns. So even though that was the principal reason they were there, presumably, it simply is not viable to disassociate it from Boris's remarks - it's too much of a coincidence.
That you suggest if it was Boris they'd have mentioned the drinking actually makes that point - because that is the news, they'd use that - because Boris tried to slur Keir, they used that. The method of harrassment was caused by the remarks, at least in part.
It's missing the point though.
The protestors didn't go after him because of the Savile comments, they went after him because - like most other politicians - he was seen as a pro-lockdown advocate. If he was anti-lockdown and BJ had made the Savile comments, chances are he would have been left alone or even cheered.
For the protestors, the Savile comments were just a useful cherry to put on top of the cake.
There was an angry mob swarming an MP. They were shouting stuff about Savile. Days after the PM made unfounded allegations in the House against that same MP.
Even on its own terms, it is risible that you are trying to segregate some purity in the motives of the mob. But actually it's nothing new. You have form for this, diminishing the seriousness of the attempted coup on the Capitol by a Trump mob.
Just what is it about political violence that you find so attractive?
The man degrades the office with every day he occupies it.
This has always been true.
The fanbois were OK with that when he was winning...
He hasn't lost yet - moreover, by historical standards the current Tory deficit in the opinion polls is not particularly alarming for a mid-term Government. This is doubtless one of several reasons why most Tory MPs remain reluctant to send in their letters.
In the end, the only thing that could break the Corbyn cult was a serious General Election defeat. I doubt that, should he end up fighting it, Johnson will suffer a serious General Election defeat. There's actually a reasonable chance that he'll survive to fight the next one and win it - and if he doesn't then, under a scenario where the Conservatives are still on over 250 seats and quite possibly the single largest party, the risk is that the party membership adopts a one-more-push mentality - think something analogous to Labour after 2017, rather than 2015 - and doubles down. Not with Johnson as leader, but with a hardline populist operating further to the right. An exceedingly dangerous individual with a good chance of returning to power at the election after next.
The Tories have a larger core vote than Labour, that vote is also more efficiently distributed, the electorate is far from sold on the notion that it wants a change to a Labour Government, and Labour has obviously yet to write and attempt to sell a manifesto - a very tricky task which will require them to enthuse their younger supporters to actually bother to turn out and vote, without sending a lot of older, statist but socially conservative, swing voters running away screaming. The Conservatives are very far from done.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
Except they mentioned the very thing Boris did which had nothing to do with lockdowns. So even though that was the principal reason they were there, presumably, it simply is not viable to disassociate it from Boris's remarks - it's too much of a coincidence.
That you suggest if it was Boris they'd have mentioned the drinking actually makes that point - because that is the news, they'd use that - because Boris tried to slur Keir, they used that. The method of harrassment was caused by the remarks, at least in part.
Yes. And in fact I'm heartened by the anger over this. It shows we haven't yet gone to the dogs.
Britain Trump, right down to using our own little cadre of QAnon
Off topic, Foxy, do you think Rodgers’ days are numbered at Leicester? They got a proper hammering yesterday by a lower league side in Forest (although admittedly Forest are usually considered the biggest club in the region, they haven’t been in the top flight for decades).
Leicester looked absolutely dismal. Just couldn’t handle a partisan crowd by the looks of things.
Worth a bet on Rodgers going?
I think he will last the season. Khun Top (the owner) was at the match yesterday, and saw it all. He is not a sacking owner, unless it looks seriously like relegation, and it isn't that bad. The payoff would soak up a fair bit of the summer transfer budget.
There is a deficit of on field leadership and a number of players are performing well under their best, notably Soyuncu, Tielemans and Ndidi, currently our senior CB and Central midfielders. The tactics and game plan are turgid, and too complex for the players, who seem quite uncertain of what to do, apart from pass sideways and back.
Liverpool and West Ham this week, so I think it will be a rough week, but Rogers will survive and limp on until May.
"Gynaecological procedure" wouldbe a better way to phrase that.
Angela Rayner was very wrong to describe Tories in general as "scum".
But in the light of tonight's events, I think she could be forgiven if with hindsight she regretted making a general apology for those comments. Her mistake was not to be more discerning. Tories are of course not scum, but a few people who just happen to be Tories are.
"Scum" is now a reasonable description to apply to Johnson (and perhaps also those who use mealy mouthed words to try and defend his lack of apology) as he veers off down the same road as Trump, undermining all norms while thrashing around seeking political survival, like a Terminator falling into a pit of molten metal.
The joke being, the scum attacking SKS were in the main Corbynites, in one case a Corbyn, and probabvly quite dclosely aligned with Angela the Irresistible
Angela Rayner was very wrong to describe Tories in general as "scum".
But in the light of tonight's events, I think she could be forgiven if with hindsight she regretted making a general apology for those comments. Her mistake was not to be more discerning. Tories are of course not scum, but a few people who just happen to be Tories are.
"Scum" is now a reasonable description to apply to Johnson (and perhaps also those who use mealy mouthed words to try and defend his lack of apology) as he veers off down the same road as Trump, undermining all norms while thrashing around seeking political survival, like a Terminator falling into a pit of molten metal.
Although with Rayner, she took more than a month to apologise unreservedly. Maybe you should give BJ a bit more time.
Or maybe not. After all, your mate in the States is still doubling down.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
Except they mentioned the very thing Boris did which had nothing to do with lockdowns. So even though that was the principal reason they were there, presumably, it simply is not viable to disassociate it from Boris's remarks - it's too much of a coincidence.
That you suggest if it was Boris they'd have mentioned the drinking actually makes that point - because that is the news, they'd use that - because Boris tried to slur Keir, they used that. The method of harrassment was caused by the remarks, at least in part.
It's missing the point though.
The protestors didn't go after him because of the Savile comments, they went after him because - like most other politicians - he was seen as a pro-lockdown advocate. If he was anti-lockdown and BJ had made the Savile comments, chances are he would have been left alone or even cheered.
For the protestors, the Savile comments were just a useful cherry to put on top of the cake.
No, the protesters (like QAnon) have a strange obsession with abuse of children, which they see as a central piece of the Great Reset. There isn't a serious commitment to stamping on paedos and grooming gangs (indeed the only action taken is to disrupt trials of those who have already been arrested). Clearly anyone supporting lockdown or vaccination is trying to pollute the nations children, therefore in league with Savile. Hence the "Save the Children" signs at anti-vax demonstrations.
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck e.g. Boris doesn't bring up the Starmer smear, the mob would still be banging that and Assanage and the great reset etc, but Boris doesn't get blamed.
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
But on the other hand - Are the Tory MPs spineless, or is it they need to be sure of winning the VONC before letting it happen?
Boris is not a resigning sort. A win in a VONC stops him being Tory Leader, a clear defeat in a general election stops him being Prime Minister, although he remains Tory leader after election defeat till losing VONC. Anything else. He is not going to resign and go quietly.
I think calling the Tory MPs spineless is unfair, they can hand Boris a win over them if they prematurely take it to a VONC and he wins. They could in theory reduce the years grace to six months, though messy as Boris fights it, that six months is still a long time and, after the May wipe out.
Where I think we are, rebellion are holding back so Boris becomes even more unpopular so they are even more confident of the VONC. The danger is, with the Olympics over the war can start, Putin’s face goes up on every dart board in Britain and Boris gets rally to the flag bounce, the rebels even further away from winning the vonc.
What part of this analysis you are saying is wrong? It just needs the letters to go in, you think the VONC sure to produce rebel win this week?
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
Mail: First day of Boris's 'grown ups' turns into circus: PM has to defend new comms chief 'Huawei' Harri as he pulls water stunt, reveals details of PM singing Gloria Gaynor's I will Survive and reminders of what he REALLY thinks of Johnson resurface
Britain Trump, right down to using our own little cadre of QAnon
Off topic, Foxy, do you think Rodgers’ days are numbered at Leicester? They got a proper hammering yesterday by a lower league side in Forest (although admittedly Forest are usually considered the biggest club in the region, they haven’t been in the top flight for decades).
Leicester looked absolutely dismal. Just couldn’t handle a partisan crowd by the looks of things.
Worth a bet on Rodgers going?
I think he will last the season. Khun Top (the owner) was at the match yesterday, and saw it all. He is not a sacking owner, unless it looks seriously like relegation, and it isn't that bad. The payoff would soak up a fair bit of the summer transfer budget.
There is a deficit of on field leadership and a number of players are performing well under their best, notably Soyuncu, Tielemans and Ndidi, currently our senior CB and Central midfielders. The tactics and game plan are turgid, and too complex for the players, who seem quite uncertain of what to do, apart from pass sideways and back.
Liverpool and West Ham this week, so I think it will be a rough week, but Rogers will survive and limp on until May.
Football managers are a bizarre bunch. I mean look at Moyes' stock at West Ham right now.
The ultimate example was probably Ranieri, from leading Leicester to a 5000-1 shot to the title to gone in 60 seconds with Watford.
Has Rodgers become a poor manager, or has he had some adverse variance following a fundamentally correct tactic and signing system ?
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
I have a very different memory of Brown being "well meaning". A man who consistently briefed and smear opponents both his own side and the opposition. Smear-gate blew up in his face, but apparently he had no idea the two blokes sitting right next to him in his office had been busy planning all of this. About as believable as Boris having no idea that he was going to a party.
The man degrades the office with every day he occupies it.
This has always been true.
The fanbois were OK with that when he was winning...
He hasn't lost yet - moreover, by historical standards the current Tory deficit in the opinion polls is not particularly alarming for a mid-term Government. This is doubtless one of several reasons why most Tory MPs remain reluctant to send in their letters.
In the end, the only thing that could break the Corbyn cult was a serious General Election defeat. I doubt that, should he end up fighting it, Johnson will suffer a serious General Election defeat. There's actually a reasonable chance that he'll survive to fight the next one and win it - and if he doesn't then, under a scenario where the Conservatives are still on over 250 seats and quite possibly the single largest party, the risk is that the party membership adopts a one-more-push mentality - think something analogous to Labour after 2017, rather than 2015 - and doubles down. Not with Johnson as leader, but with a hardline populist operating further to the right. An exceedingly dangerous individual with a good chance of returning to power at the election after next.
The Tories have a larger core vote than Labour, that vote is also more efficiently distributed, the electorate is far from sold on the notion that it wants a change to a Labour Government, and Labour has obviously yet to write and attempt to sell a manifesto - a very tricky task which will require them to enthuse their younger supporters to actually bother to turn out and vote, without sending a lot of older, statist but socially conservative, swing voters running away screaming. The Conservatives are very far from done.
In many way the thing that the saner Tories should be really scared about is not that Johnson can’t recover, but actually the possibility that he might. The former is the calculation that many “moderate” Republicans made about Trump - first humouring his initial attempts to contest the election result, and then failing to convict him during his impeachment. Now his enduring “popularity” amongst huge swathes of the GOP base, combined with Govt unpopularity, leaves them paralysed and at his and his supporters mercy.
I dislike Johnson and would like to see him removed from office, but the Starmer/Savile thing is not going to be the end of him.
Worth pointing out that Boris Johnson is pretty sensible compared to Jeremy Corbyn, someone whom many people on here voted for. Corbyn's ideas about Russia spring to mind immediately as being actually dangerous.
Not really worth pointing out. Corbyn is an excuse that has slipped into history. He's not coming back.
There's no longer a choice between Dumb and Dumber, there's only a choice between Dumb and Someone Better.
Its not quite that simple. You need to consider who is sitting behind Starmer in parliament, and the membership of the labour party more generally.
I can also recall quite a bit of Putin sympathising in the SNP over the years.
gabyhinsliff @gabyhinsliff · 26m What a day for the newest MP in Parliament to be sworn in. Imagine having inherited poor David Amess’s seat & arriving in Westminster to this.
I think that is right re the split. In that case, I would imagine the RW and the rural parts of the Conservative party would stick together, and the suburban MPs would gravitate to some form of coalition with the Lib Dems, although I think that also triggers a possible realignment of LD politics. BTW, I also think Labour is in danger of being split in a similar way (urbanites to the Greens, for example).
Where you are wrong is in the phrase "But they do to avoid stirring up demons". That's the phrase - and apologies Nick because I respect you a lot - of someone who has a very comfortable position and doesn't want to face the facts that, for many people in this country, life is sh1t. The demons have already been stirred. People like Trump and (to a degree) Johnson are symptoms, not causes. A well-functioning democracy that looks after all sections of society should not have a need of such people. They exist because many people have been f**ked over and they don't know to whom to turn.
PS Yes, you are right the last sentence is a straw man argument, so I shouldn't have put it in.
No need to apologise, Ed, you're right about life being shit for many people. It's not new, though - it's what got me into politics, more than 50 years ago, and has kept me engaged throughout that time (I've never given a toss about it as a way to make money or get on TV). Life is to a large extent a lottery, and good government IMO seeks to balance that out, to a greater or lesser extent. From each according to ability, to each according to need, as we lefties like to say.
So I'm not against levelling up at all, and as you know I think Gove is the right man for the job on the Tory side. But the sprinkling of rabble-rousing rhetoric is unnecessary and alien to the tradition of a lot of Conservatives, and I think we'll find that a fair number actually cross the floor when the election approaches. And it's not actually necessary - I know people who are really hard up, might well vote Tory if they thought they'd help, but who are actually turned off by rabble-rousing, since they think it's a cover for not actually helping them.
I dislike Johnson and would like to see him removed from office, but the Starmer/Savile thing is not going to be the end of him.
Worth pointing out that Boris Johnson is pretty sensible compared to Jeremy Corbyn, someone whom many people on here voted for. Corbyn's ideas about Russia spring to mind immediately as being actually dangerous.
Not really worth pointing out. Corbyn is an excuse that has slipped into history. He's not coming back.
There's no longer a choice between Dumb and Dumber, there's only a choice between Dumb and Someone Better.
Its not quite that simple. You need to consider who is sitting behind Starmer in parliament, and the membership of the labour party more generally.
I can also recall quite a bit of Putin sympathising in the SNP over the years.
Yup, Alex Salmond's shameful dalliance with RT is a stain on the SNP (then) and Alba (now). The Conservatives have form for this too. Numerous MPs across the house have... worrying... ties.
But just to avoid any confusion, when I said "there's only a choice between Dumb and Someone Better" I wasn't referring to Starmer or any other Labour MP. I was referring to any of the senior MPs who'd be in the running to replace the FLSoJ. I have my own preferences, but any of them would be better.
There isn't an election due, but we could have a better PM in a matter of days if the Tories pulled their fingers out.
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
I have a very different memory of Brown being "well meaning". A man who consistently briefed and smear opponents both his own side and the opposition. Smear-gate blew up in his face, but apparently he had no idea the two blokes sitting right next to him in his office had been busy planning all of this. About as believable as Boris having no idea that he was going to a party.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying any of the silly games that Whelan and co played compares with this Trumpian level of absolute lying, smearing, hate inducing, mob rising bollocks?
Johnson is another order of magnitude.
Negative briefings from the Red Lion seem quaint by comparison.
gabyhinsliff @gabyhinsliff · 26m What a day for the newest MP in Parliament to be sworn in. Imagine having inherited poor David Amess’s seat & arriving in Westminster to this.
On topic: Boris does all kinds of outrageous and disreputable shit to smear the opposition which helps you keep your job, and you get to make honourable statements denouncing it which also helps you keep your job. Why would you VONC away this state of affairs?
The worst case is that a year before the election Boris has damaged both Starmer and himself. So do the VONC then, you get rid of your damaged Boris, and Labour still have to run their damaged Starmer.
Britain Trump, right down to using our own little cadre of QAnon
Off topic, Foxy, do you think Rodgers’ days are numbered at Leicester? They got a proper hammering yesterday by a lower league side in Forest (although admittedly Forest are usually considered the biggest club in the region, they haven’t been in the top flight for decades).
Leicester looked absolutely dismal. Just couldn’t handle a partisan crowd by the looks of things.
Worth a bet on Rodgers going?
I think he will last the season. Khun Top (the owner) was at the match yesterday, and saw it all. He is not a sacking owner, unless it looks seriously like relegation, and it isn't that bad. The payoff would soak up a fair bit of the summer transfer budget.
There is a deficit of on field leadership and a number of players are performing well under their best, notably Soyuncu, Tielemans and Ndidi, currently our senior CB and Central midfielders. The tactics and game plan are turgid, and too complex for the players, who seem quite uncertain of what to do, apart from pass sideways and back.
Liverpool and West Ham this week, so I think it will be a rough week, but Rogers will survive and limp on until May.
Football managers are a bizarre bunch. I mean look at Moyes' stock at West Ham right now.
The ultimate example was probably Ranieri, from leading Leicester to a 5000-1 shot to the title to gone in 60 seconds with Watford.
Has Rodgers become a poor manager, or has he had some adverse variance following a fundamentally correct tactic and signing system ?
Claudio went from winning the title to being sacked at Leicester in 6 months. We loved the guy, and he gets a great reception at Leicester still. It was the Leicester fans singing his name when we played Watford recently. He was going to get us relegated though.
Like most managers Claudio has a short shelf like. A new manager brings new ideas and inspiration, but it looks tired within a few seasons, as they gradually annoy too much of the squad. That is how they get sacked, yet do well at their next club. Rogers is similar. He took over a system and players of Puel, but gave a bit more energy for a while to Puel's system.
I reckon Rogers, like Johnson, will be gone this year, but not quite yet.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole Collision symbol EXC: PM’s new PR man directly lobbied No10 Chief of Staff not to ban controversial tech firm Huawei over spying fears.
Guto Harri used 2020 meeting with Sir Ed Lister to ask which ministers to “nudge” on behalf of Chinese client, leaked minutes say:
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
I have a very different memory of Brown being "well meaning". A man who consistently briefed and smear opponents both his own side and the opposition. Smear-gate blew up in his face, but apparently he had no idea the two blokes sitting right next to him in his office had been busy planning all of this. About as believable as Boris having no idea that he was going to a party.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying any of the silly games that Whelan and co played compares with this Trumpian level of absolute lying, smearing, hate inducing, mob rising bollocks?
Johnson is another order of magnitude.
Negative briefings from the Red Lion seem quaint by comparison.
You remember what the smear-gate plan was....it was evil. Brown was also incredibly bad tempered, hurling phones at people, screaming at people, making employees cry etc. That's work place abuse stuff, reign of terror.
Boris is lazy, serial liar and a cheat, willing to throw people under the bus if it will save him, and more than than he is useless at the job and needs to go. Brown was useless at the job, horridly bad tempered and willing to spread evil shit to make sure he won.
Mail: First day of Boris's 'grown ups' turns into circus: PM has to defend new comms chief 'Huawei' Harri as he pulls water stunt, reveals details of PM singing Gloria Gaynor's I will Survive and reminders of what he REALLY thinks of Johnson resurface
I don't believe the Gloria Gaynor story.
Either it is true, or he has retained a head of communications who thinks that fabricating it is a clever and useful thing to do.
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
I have a very different memory of Brown being "well meaning". A man who consistently briefed and smear opponents both his own side and the opposition. Smear-gate blew up in his face, but apparently he had no idea the two blokes sitting right next to him in his office had been busy planning all of this. About as believable as Boris having no idea that he was going to a party.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying any of the silly games that Whelan and co played compares with this Trumpian level of absolute lying, smearing, hate inducing, mob rising bollocks?
Johnson is another order of magnitude.
Negative briefings from the Red Lion seem quaint by comparison.
Whelan and Co were quite happy to destroy people's careers and cause them mental anguish to get their way. Just because you don't like Johnson, doesn't mean you have to justify Brown's behaviour.
I think that is right re the split. In that case, I would imagine the RW and the rural parts of the Conservative party would stick together, and the suburban MPs would gravitate to some form of coalition with the Lib Dems, although I think that also triggers a possible realignment of LD politics. BTW, I also think Labour is in danger of being split in a similar way (urbanites to the Greens, for example).
Where you are wrong is in the phrase "But they do to avoid stirring up demons". That's the phrase - and apologies Nick because I respect you a lot - of someone who has a very comfortable position and doesn't want to face the facts that, for many people in this country, life is sh1t. The demons have already been stirred. People like Trump and (to a degree) Johnson are symptoms, not causes. A well-functioning democracy that looks after all sections of society should not have a need of such people. They exist because many people have been f**ked over and they don't know to whom to turn.
PS Yes, you are right the last sentence is a straw man argument, so I shouldn't have put it in.
No need to apologise, Ed, you're right about life being shit for many people. It's not new, though - it's what got me into politics, more than 50 years ago, and has kept me engaged throughout that time (I've never given a toss about it as a way to make money or get on TV). Life is to a large extent a lottery, and good government IMO seeks to balance that out, to a greater or lesser extent. From each according to ability, to each according to need, as we lefties like to say.
So I'm not against levelling up at all, and as you know I think Gove is the right man for the job on the Tory side. But the sprinkling of rabble-rousing rhetoric is unnecessary and alien to the tradition of a lot of Conservatives, and I think we'll find that a fair number actually cross the floor when the election approaches. And it's not actually necessary - I know people who are really hard up, might well vote Tory if they thought they'd help, but who are actually turned off by rabble-rousing, since they think it's a cover for not actually helping them.
Thank you Nick and it was unwarranted, you are one of the excellent people in politics. Funnily enough, a few of my best friends think I should actually stand for Labour because of what I think on the whole levelling up thing. Not sure I would get past the admissions process
And, yes, rabble rousing isn't right. It's a sign of a lost argument.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
No10 lying, STRAP clearance takes *weeks even when accelerated*. So No10 press office lying about their new comms guru's security status, Huawei Hari, on his spectacular first day...
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
If Johnson had been "attacked" for his lying about parties during lockdown that would have been fully justified, it's true. Starmer being "attacked" over the slurs re Savile is not justified, it's not true. Therein lies the difference, there is no equivalence.
No10 lying, STRAP clearance takes *weeks even when accelerated*. So No10 press office lying about their new comms guru's security status, Huawei Hari, on his spectacular first day...
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
I have a very different memory of Brown being "well meaning". A man who consistently briefed and smear opponents both his own side and the opposition. Smear-gate blew up in his face, but apparently he had no idea the two blokes sitting right next to him in his office had been busy planning all of this. About as believable as Boris having no idea that he was going to a party.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying any of the silly games that Whelan and co played compares with this Trumpian level of absolute lying, smearing, hate inducing, mob rising bollocks?
Johnson is another order of magnitude.
Negative briefings from the Red Lion seem quaint by comparison.
Whelan and Co were quite happy to destroy people's careers and cause them mental anguish to get their way. Just because you don't like Johnson, doesn't mean you have to justify Brown's behaviour.
Does a single hour ever go by without your indulging in pompous whataboutery?
Regarding your support for Trumpton and Boz - I have never seen you say much good about them, and plenty bad.
1. Putin fails to budge Macron on ending Nato enlargement. 2. Macron fails to budge Putin on deescalation. 3. Putin gives a nod to Macron taking some ideas for Minsk implementation to Kiev.
Who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at the the time? it was of course Sir Kier Starmer, the Boss.
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
I have a very different memory of Brown being "well meaning". A man who consistently briefed and smear opponents both his own side and the opposition. Smear-gate blew up in his face, but apparently he had no idea the two blokes sitting right next to him in his office had been busy planning all of this. About as believable as Boris having no idea that he was going to a party.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying any of the silly games that Whelan and co played compares with this Trumpian level of absolute lying, smearing, hate inducing, mob rising bollocks?
Johnson is another order of magnitude.
Negative briefings from the Red Lion seem quaint by comparison.
Whelan and Co were quite happy to destroy people's careers and cause them mental anguish to get their way. Just because you don't like Johnson, doesn't mean you have to justify Brown's behaviour.
Does a single hour ever go by without your indulging in pompous whataboutery?
Regarding your support for Trumpton and Boz - I have never seen you say much good about them, and plenty bad.
It must be a weird old world in your head.
God you are so boring at times @Anabobazina, come up with something original.
No10 lying, STRAP clearance takes *weeks even when accelerated*. So No10 press office lying about their new comms guru's security status, Huawei Hari, on his spectacular first day...
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
If Johnson had been "attacked" for his lying about parties during lockdown that would have been fully justified, it's true. Starmer being "attacked" over the slurs re Savile is not justified, it's not true. Therein lies the difference, there is no equivalence.
So basically attacking a MP is not the issue as long as the attack is done for legitimate reasons. Oh, and it’s a Tory.
Who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at the the time? it was of course Sir Kier Starmer, the Boss.
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
Still trying to smear I see. You have clearly learnt nothing.
And in case you missed it, the CPS doesn't just prosecute on a whim. There has to be enough evidence to build a case that has a reasonable chance of ending in a conviction. You don't know what evidence was presented. Neither do you know how substantial the case was. You are just taking the opportunity to take a dig at Starmer from a position of complete ignorance.
Who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at the the time? it was of course Sir Kier Starmer, the Boss.
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
Is your intention to slur Sir Keir Starmer or are you trying to champion Saville's victims? When even Boris Johnson has tried to apologise it would be interesting to know what motivates you?
Who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at the the time? it was of course Sir Kier Starmer, the Boss.
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
You, mean, like he did in 2013 by adopting the findings of the report he had commissioned into the decision, and apologising on behalf of the CPS?
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 54m This is what happens when our Prime Minister uses far right fascist memes to try and distract from him being under criminal investigation. He is not a clown he's a danger.
Who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at the the time? it was of course Sir Kier Starmer, the Boss.
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
Still trying to smear I see. You have clearly learnt nothing.
And in case you missed it, the CPS doesn't just prosecute on a whim. There has to be enough evidence to build a case that has a reasonable chance of ending in a conviction. You don't know what evidence was presented. Neither do you know how substantial the case was. You are just taking the opportunity to take a dig at Starmer from a position of complete ignorance.
Not smearing just saying, I don't know much about, for example drilling for oil, but when an oil company makes a mistake in that department and there's an environmental disaster does the boss of the oil company say 'oh it's nothing to do with me, it's the people under me, they failed to do what they were supposed to do'
Well he might say that but when it comes down to it, people look to the boss and if the operation is a success the boss gets the plaudits but when the operation fails the boss should get the blame.
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
@Liveuamap Putin: We understand that the conventional power of NATO is more than Russia's. But Russia is the top nuclear power. And there will be no winners in the war (in case of Ukraine in NATO, and will attempt to return Crimea with force)
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
Apologising and promising to do better is never enough for some.
I notice that it has now been revealed that the n word video was professionally produced by a media production company that specialises in hit piece videos.
Who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at the the time? it was of course Sir Kier Starmer, the Boss.
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
Still trying to smear I see. You have clearly learnt nothing.
And in case you missed it, the CPS doesn't just prosecute on a whim. There has to be enough evidence to build a case that has a reasonable chance of ending in a conviction. You don't know what evidence was presented. Neither do you know how substantial the case was. You are just taking the opportunity to take a dig at Starmer from a position of complete ignorance.
Not smearing just saying, I don't know much about, for example drilling for oil, but when an oil company makes a mistake in that department and there's an environmental disaster does the boss of the oil company say 'oh it's nothing to do with me, it's the people under me, they failed to do what they were supposed to do'
Well he might say that but when it comes down to it, people look to the boss and if the operation is a success the boss gets the plaudits but when the operation fails the boss should get the blame.
The Scotsman's article said 'Johnson will say anything if he thinks it will save his wretched skin. Nothing is out of bounds on the basis of taste or decency"
@Liveuamap Putin: We understand that the conventional power of NATO is more than Russia's. But Russia is the top nuclear power. And there will be no winners in the war (in case of Ukraine in NATO, and will attempt to return Crimea with force)
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
@Liveuamap Putin: We understand that the conventional power of NATO is more than Russia's. But Russia is the top nuclear power. And there will be no winners in the war (in case of Ukraine in NATO, and will attempt to return Crimea with force)
That's quite a serious escalation: is Putin really suggesting he'd use nukes if the West sought to help defend Ukraine?
He seems deeply confused. I get he is trying to paint NATO as the aggressor (not easy when he is the one building up huge numbers of troops, which is not quite on the same order of magnitude as 'we were promised X would not get to join NATO), but it is hard to pretend you are not the one escalating talk of military options when you start bringing out talk of nukes.
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
Rock star Neil Young has posted a message on his website encouraging Spotify employees to leave the company and criticizing its CEO over the ongoing controversy centered around coronavirus misinformation on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
@Liveuamap Putin: We understand that the conventional power of NATO is more than Russia's. But Russia is the top nuclear power. And there will be no winners in the war (in case of Ukraine in NATO, and will attempt to return Crimea with force)
That's quite a serious escalation: is Putin really suggesting he'd use nukes if the West sought to help defend Ukraine?
It's no escalation; it's always been apparent. Russian doctrine - inherited from the Sovs - is to use tactical nukes and chemical weapons to cancel the qualitative technological and logistical advantages held by NATO forces.
If Russian forces are in direct kinetic contact with NATO forces it will go nuclear within days. It doesn't matter at all which side of the Russia/Ukraine border the fighting is happening.
Who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at the the time? it was of course Sir Kier Starmer, the Boss.
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
Is your intention to slur Sir Keir Starmer or are you trying to champion Saville's victims? When even Boris Johnson has tried to apologise it would be interesting to know what motivates you?
Not slurring or championing anybody and what motivates me is this weird obsession with some people that Sir Kier Starmer is a complete innocent over the Jimmy Saville affair.
When a football club underperforms, it's usually the team manager that gets the sack even though he's not on the field of play, but he's supposed to select the team and he's supposed to coach the team and therefore he should the one who's ultimately responsible.
It seems that even though Sir Keir Starmer was the boss of the CPS at the time, some people, for political reasons, seem to think that he should be above blame.
Comments
That you suggest if it was Boris they'd have mentioned the drinking actually makes that point - because that is the news, they'd use that - because Boris tried to slur Keir, they used that. The method of harrassment was caused by the remarks, at least in part.
They can't be made to go away or apologised for. There is also no sense that Johnson can promise "change". Somebody who has operated in a certain way his whole life can't suddenly adopt a completely new approach. He wouldn't know how, even if he was inclined to try.
What you also fail to mention is the left has played its part. Portraying large swathes of the population as ignorant hillbillies / 'Gammons' who are racist, ignorant thugs, and claiming that they are automatically privileged just because of the colour of their skin is not exactly helping the situation.
Putin: We understand that the conventional power of NATO is more than Russia's. But Russia is the top nuclear power. And there will be no winners in the war (in case of Ukraine in NATO, and will attempt to return Crimea with force)
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1490810529811767300
There's no longer a choice between Dumb and Dumber, there's only a choice between Dumb and Someone Better.
The protestors didn't go after him because of the Savile comments, they went after him because - like most other politicians - he was seen as a pro-lockdown advocate. If he was anti-lockdown and BJ had made the Savile comments, chances are he would have been left alone or even cheered.
For the protestors, the Savile comments were just a useful cherry to put on top of the cake.
First day of Boris's 'grown ups' turns into circus: PM has to defend new comms chief 'Huawei' Harri as he pulls water stunt, reveals details of PM singing Gloria Gaynor's I will Survive and reminders of what he REALLY thinks of Johnson resurface
But in the light of tonight's events, I think she could be forgiven if with hindsight she regretted making a general apology for those comments. Her mistake was not to be more discerning. Tories are of course not scum, but a few people who just happen to be Tories are.
"Scum" is now a reasonable description to apply to Johnson (and perhaps also those who use mealy mouthed words to try and defend his lack of apology) as he veers off down the same road as Trump, undermining all norms while thrashing around seeking political survival, like a Terminator falling into a pit of molten metal.
The thing is though, Boris gave them an excuse and validated their conspiracy theory bullshit.
I don't think that would have stopped them mobbing him if they saw him, but the point is... no serious politician, let alone the prime minister, should be feeding these people's delusions.
They were shouting stuff about Savile.
Days after the PM made unfounded allegations in the House against that same MP.
Even on its own terms, it is risible that you are trying to segregate some purity in the motives of the mob. But actually it's nothing new. You have form for this, diminishing the seriousness of the attempted coup on the Capitol by a Trump mob.
Just what is it about political violence that you find so attractive?
In the end, the only thing that could break the Corbyn cult was a serious General Election defeat. I doubt that, should he end up fighting it, Johnson will suffer a serious General Election defeat. There's actually a reasonable chance that he'll survive to fight the next one and win it - and if he doesn't then, under a scenario where the Conservatives are still on over 250 seats and quite possibly the single largest party, the risk is that the party membership adopts a one-more-push mentality - think something analogous to Labour after 2017, rather than 2015 - and doubles down. Not with Johnson as leader, but with a hardline populist operating further to the right. An exceedingly dangerous individual with a good chance of returning to power at the election after next.
The Tories have a larger core vote than Labour, that vote is also more efficiently distributed, the electorate is far from sold on the notion that it wants a change to a Labour Government, and Labour has obviously yet to write and attempt to sell a manifesto - a very tricky task which will require them to enthuse their younger supporters to actually bother to turn out and vote, without sending a lot of older, statist but socially conservative, swing voters running away screaming. The Conservatives are very far from done.
FFS get the letters in.
Clown.
Mob.
Relaunch complete.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1490815970880933890
"The brilliant thing about Boris is that he can reach people who wouldn't normally support the Tories!"
How it's going:
"Boris can't be responsible for this angry mob, they don't look like people who would normally support the Tories."
Boris is not a resigning sort. A win in a VONC stops him being Tory Leader, a clear defeat in a general election stops him being Prime Minister, although he remains Tory leader after election defeat till losing VONC. Anything else. He is not going to resign and go quietly.
I think calling the Tory MPs spineless is unfair, they can hand Boris a win over them if they prematurely take it to a VONC and he wins. They could in theory reduce the years grace to six months, though messy as Boris fights it, that six months is still a long time and, after the May wipe out.
Where I think we are, rebellion are holding back so Boris becomes even more unpopular so they are even more confident of the VONC. The danger is, with the Olympics over the war can start, Putin’s face goes up on every dart board in Britain and Boris gets rally to the flag bounce, the rebels even further away from winning the vonc.
What part of this analysis you are saying is wrong? It just needs the letters to go in, you think the VONC sure to produce rebel win this week?
I mean look at Moyes' stock at West Ham right now.
The ultimate example was probably Ranieri, from leading Leicester to a 5000-1 shot to the title to gone in 60 seconds with Watford.
Has Rodgers become a poor manager, or has he had some adverse variance following a fundamentally correct tactic and signing system ?
Whereas Mail Online still leads, hours later, on the mob attacking Sir K.
I can also recall quite a bit of Putin sympathising in the SNP over the years.
gabyhinsliff
@gabyhinsliff
·
26m
What a day for the newest MP in Parliament to be sworn in. Imagine having inherited poor David Amess’s seat & arriving in Westminster to this.
So I'm not against levelling up at all, and as you know I think Gove is the right man for the job on the Tory side. But the sprinkling of rabble-rousing rhetoric is unnecessary and alien to the tradition of a lot of Conservatives, and I think we'll find that a fair number actually cross the floor when the election approaches. And it's not actually necessary - I know people who are really hard up, might well vote Tory if they thought they'd help, but who are actually turned off by rabble-rousing, since they think it's a cover for not actually helping them.
The Conservatives have form for this too. Numerous MPs across the house have... worrying... ties.
But just to avoid any confusion, when I said "there's only a choice between Dumb and Someone Better" I wasn't referring to Starmer or any other Labour MP. I was referring to any of the senior MPs who'd be in the running to replace the FLSoJ. I have my own preferences, but any of them would be better.
There isn't an election due, but we could have a better PM in a matter of days if the Tories pulled their fingers out.
Johnson is another order of magnitude.
Negative briefings from the Red Lion seem quaint by comparison.
The worst case is that a year before the election Boris has damaged both Starmer and himself. So do the VONC then, you get rid of your damaged Boris, and Labour still have to run their damaged Starmer.
Like most managers Claudio has a short shelf like. A new manager brings new ideas and inspiration, but it looks tired within a few seasons, as they gradually annoy too much of the squad. That is how they get sacked, yet do well at their next club. Rogers is similar. He took over a system and players of Puel, but gave a bit more energy for a while to Puel's system.
I reckon Rogers, like Johnson, will be gone this year, but not quite yet.
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
Collision symbol EXC: PM’s new PR man directly lobbied No10 Chief of Staff not to ban controversial tech firm Huawei over spying fears.
Guto Harri used 2020 meeting with Sir Ed Lister to ask which ministers to “nudge” on behalf of Chinese client, leaked minutes say:
Boris is lazy, serial liar and a cheat, willing to throw people under the bus if it will save him, and more than than he is useless at the job and needs to go. Brown was useless at the job, horridly bad tempered and willing to spread evil shit to make sure he won.
Both were totally unsuitable.
And, yes, rabble rousing isn't right. It's a sign of a lost argument.
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1490821605680988165
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
I wrote this in October 2020 and was poo-poohed by many on here -
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/10/11/enemies-within/.
Why is anyone surprised by what the PM has said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
It makes Boris claim worse in a way, because we have seen this play before, and we recently had an MP of his own party murdered by a nutter.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10485759/Trumps-75-coffee-table-book-captions-written-raked-20M-two-months.html
They can only do harm"
So No10 press office lying about their new comms guru's security status, Huawei Hari, on his spectacular first day...
https://mobile.twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1490814509686136835
Regarding your support for Trumpton and Boz - I have never seen you say much good about them, and plenty bad.
It must be a weird old world in your head.
Sticks and stones may break your bones
But words can never hurt you
1. Putin fails to budge Macron on ending Nato enlargement.
2. Macron fails to budge Putin on deescalation.
3. Putin gives a nod to Macron taking some ideas for Minsk implementation to Kiev.
Stalemate continues.
https://twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1488832022613315586?s=20&t=87sB5sqVjPCzJdR1LTGI1Q
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
And in case you missed it, the CPS doesn't just prosecute on a whim. There has to be enough evidence to build a case that has a reasonable chance of ending in a conviction. You don't know what evidence was presented. Neither do you know how substantial the case was. You are just taking the opportunity to take a dig at Starmer from a position of complete ignorance.
@jessphillips
·
54m
This is what happens when our Prime Minister uses far right fascist memes to try and distract from him being under criminal investigation. He is not a clown he's a danger.
Well he might say that but when it comes down to it, people look to the boss and if the operation is a success the boss gets the plaudits but when the operation fails the boss should get the blame.
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/593189-neil-young-urges-spotify-employees-to-quit-over-joe-rogan
I notice that it has now been revealed that the n word video was professionally produced by a media production company that specialises in hit piece videos.
What's your excuse?
If Russian forces are in direct kinetic contact with NATO forces it will go nuclear within days. It doesn't matter at all which side of the Russia/Ukraine border the fighting is happening.
When a football club underperforms, it's usually the team manager that gets the sack even though he's not on the field of play, but he's supposed to select the team and he's supposed to coach the team and therefore he should the one who's ultimately responsible.
It seems that even though Sir Keir Starmer was the boss of the CPS at the time, some people, for political reasons, seem to think that he should be above blame.