If Carrie brought friends then it cannot possibly have been a work event as Johnson tells us.
Non-colleagues attendance must absolutely be the definition of a non-work event i.e. a social occassion.
Not that a work "event" existed at the time as a vehicle for having a party with colleagues. There was no such arrangement in the laws.
Lillico made an interesting point yesterday (based on Baker's speech): lockdowns went on far too long in part because those running the country were not actually effected by them so they had no idea how depressed and miserable people were becoming. They basically carried on as normal except the pub was closed.
Theoretically you could have Carrie and her friends at one table and her husband and his employees at another & then you are having two separate events in a shared space?
Like that happened.
Almost certainly not.
Although I do recall from the balcony photo that Carrie & her friends were at a separate table with Boris
According to Telegraph that event has been dismissed by Met as below the threshold of investigation.
It is the 20th May that the focus is on. BYOB. Email to all and sundry across Whitehall etc etc...
Exclusive: Labour set to maintain advantage over Tories in London as PM's personal ratings in capital drop
Labour looks set to maintain their huge advantage over the Conservatives in London in next month's local elections as Boris Johnson's personal ratings in his former fiefdom drop sharply.
An exclusive poll for Sky News by Opinium suggests Labour would win 45% of the popular vote compared to 25% for the Conservatives, enough to ensure Keir Starmer's party maintain most of their power base in the city halls in the capital.
However this is a comparatively small advance on 2018 when London councils were last out for election and when Jeremy Corbyn's Labour was capitalising on Tory Brexit chaos meaning Labour won 44% of the vote and the Tories got 29%.
This means they may not gain many extra seats compared to 2018 when the capital's voters last elected their councillors.
Tories, LDs and Greens all look about right to me.
Labour only up 1% in London on 2018 would be a somewhat poor result though but this is the most credible looking London local election poll that I've seen.
2.5% swing since 2018 seems rather lower than I would have expected.
Thats because you like most PBers give Corbyn no credit for anything.
And May 2018 was not down to "Tory Brexit Chaos" either
I think most people credit Corbyn for his huge influence on the 2019 general election result. And rightly so.
But not his gains in 2017 or 2018 strange that
Also you dont think "Getting Brexit Done" and Labours stupid positioning on it were at all relevant?
Corbyn lost in 2017 as well...
Thanks for proving my point that most PBers are incapable of giving Corbyn credit for anything especially the 2017GE largest increase in vote since WW2
How often do you need to be told that Labour lost in 2017?
But got the largest increase in vote since WW2 and the biggest swing to Lab in the 21st Century
Largest increase in votes is meaningless is you don't account for population increase. Largest increase in percentage points would be more interesting, but Corbyn did not achieve that.
Largest increase in Percentage points for Labour in the 21st Century he did I believe in 2017.
Thanks for highlighting another of his achievements
Well, 2001, 2005 and 2010 they were in government, so hard for them to go forward much. (And they were also coming off 1997.)
So that leaves three elections where they were in opposition: which means he was first and last.
Poor France. A worse choice of leader than Britain had in 2019 or the US had in 2020.
What's he done to offend you? Too right wing?
It's interesting to ponder the root of anti-Macron sentiment over here. If you're left wing it makes sense - the guy is a centre right politician who forces leftist voters to vote for him to keep the far right out. That's annoying. But most of it seems to come from people who are themselves well right of centre in their politics. So I conclude it's not about his politics it's about the man. But what about the man? I'm not sure, and won't pretend to be, but I sense it might have something to do with him being French.
He's extremely pro EU and there's nothing the right wing on here desire as much as the collapse of the EU. A Le Pen victory would be No 10's dream.
That must be in the mix, yes. Personally I find it hard to understand rooting for the EU to collapse. Europe reverting to a morass of competing nationalisms - how can anybody in their right mind want that?
I confirms them in the choices they made. Some were a little uncomfortable following Farage. If it unravels it makes acceptable the ugly connotations of their decision.
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
Because he wasn't monstered to quite the usual extent for a Labour leader not called Tony Blair, you mean.
It should be a matter of eternal shame to Labour that they allowed Corbyn to become leader. He is, quite literally, anti-Western. Believes the wrong side won the Cold War.
When asked if he admires Zelensky as a leader, Corbyn claimed he “doesn’t know” because he’s “never met him.” Presumably he spent plenty of time with Mary Wollstonecraft then, because he’s previously insisted she’s his “political hero”…
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
A story I heard was that the Tories had the attacks lined up but the terror attacks in Manchester and London so close to election day put the kibosh on them.
I've said before that probably the most significant events in the 2017 election were the two terrorist outrages but most people, even on here, seem to forget they happened during the election campaign.
Certainly made a difference to me. I’d decided to vote Tory for the first time in my life, but switched in the last days after TMay indicated an intention to tear up human rights legislation in the wake of the Southwark attack. I felt able to do so safe in the knowledge that Corbyn wouldn’t win.
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
Because he wasn't monstered to quite the usual extent for a Labour leader not called Tony Blair, you mean.
No need for monstering, his own disgusting record was quite enough, as we found as soon as voters woke up to it.
The other thing about 2017 - now largely forgotten - was the absolutely vile and personal campaign against Theresa May that Labour (through proxies, mainly Momentum) ran on social media. It was quite extraordinarily unpleasant, but because it was aimed mainly at youngsters and was done on social media through videos which were then shared, it didn't really get noticed in the mainstream media.
And the carefully targeted, social media smearing of Corbyn by the Tories in 2019 was on an industrial scale. But c'mon, your point was he did well in 2017 because he had the press on his side. That's nonsense. There's no way you can argue with a straight face that the weighted mass of the British media were on the side of Jeremy Corbyn in either of the elections he fought. Ok, by 2019 they were giving him a bigger kicking, maybe in 2017 they were a touch complacent, gave him no chance and so didn't bother putting the hobnail boots on, but that's as far as one can fairly go.
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
Plus the assumption among many that the Tories were going to win handsomely ( a lot of the electorate would not notice the late swings) so that some people could indulge in Corbyn mania assuming that responsible adults would rescue them from the consequences of their vote. Like you I was astonished at the lack of scrutiny and also lack of attack from the Tory official campaign - they must have decided that negative campaigning would be counterproductive. Not so when too many thought Corbyn a harmless sincere anti-politician. Lib Dems also foolishly concentrated on exclusively attacking the Tories - they would be much better placed if they attacked both major parties hard.
And this is why I think Le Pen could still win on Sunday.
Lots of people don't like Macron. They don't like Le Pen either.
If it were a forced choice, they'd go with Macron.
But they'd rather not dirty their hands by actually voting for him, and if he's going to win anyway... And so a lot of his - rather shallow - vote stays home because they think he is home and dry.
Now, is this the most likely scenario?
Nope. But if I'm offered 20-1 on Le Pen, I might have a small nibble.
Poor France. A worse choice of leader than Britain had in 2019 or the US had in 2020.
What's he done to offend you? Too right wing?
It's interesting to ponder the root of anti-Macron sentiment over here. If you're left wing it makes sense - the guy is a centre right politician who forces leftist voters to vote for him to keep the far right out. That's annoying. But most of it seems to come from people who are themselves well right of centre in their politics. So I conclude it's not about his politics it's about the man. But what about the man? I'm not sure, and won't pretend to be, but I sense it might have something to do with him being French.
A close friend of mine knows him well (and has negotiated with him extensively on multiple occasions).
“Odious and untrustworthy” was his description.
Ok, but not many people have close friends who have negotiated with Macron extensively on multiple occasions. So that can't really explain it.
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
Because he wasn't monstered to quite the usual extent for a Labour leader not called Tony Blair, you mean.
No need for monstering, his own disgusting record was quite enough, as we found as soon as voters woke up to it.
The other thing about 2017 - now largely forgotten - was the absolutely vile and personal campaign against Theresa May that Labour (through proxies, mainly Momentum) ran on social media. It was quite extraordinarily unpleasant, but because it was aimed mainly at youngsters and was done on social media through videos which were then shared, it didn't really get noticed in the mainstream media.
And the carefully targeted, social media smearing of Corbyn by the Tories in 2019 was on an industrial scale. But c'mon, your point was he did well in 2017 because he had the press on his side. That's nonsense. There's no way you can argue with a straight face that the weighted mass of the British media were on the side of Jeremy Corbyn in either of the elections he fought. Ok, by 2019 they were giving him a bigger kicking, maybe in 2017 they were a touch complacent, gave him no chance and so didn't bother putting the hobnail boots on, but that's as far as one can fairly go.
I remember the GE of 2017 vividly. All the "absolute boy" bollocks. And the credulous lack of understanding of what Corbyn was about and what he stood for. He deserved to be annihilated in 2019 and thank god he was. At least we now have a respectable LOTO and the grip of the hard left on Labour has been broken.
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
Because he wasn't monstered to quite the usual extent for a Labour leader not called Tony Blair, you mean.
No need for monstering, his own disgusting record was quite enough, as we found as soon as voters woke up to it.
The other thing about 2017 - now largely forgotten - was the absolutely vile and personal campaign against Theresa May that Labour (through proxies, mainly Momentum) ran on social media. It was quite extraordinarily unpleasant, but because it was aimed mainly at youngsters and was done on social media through videos which were then shared, it didn't really get noticed in the mainstream media.
And the carefully targeted, social media smearing of Corbyn by the Tories in 2019 was on an industrial scale. But c'mon, your point was he did well in 2017 because he had the press on his side. That's nonsense. There's no way you can argue with a straight face that the weighted mass of the British media were on the side of Jeremy Corbyn in either of the elections he fought. Ok, by 2019 they were giving him a bigger kicking, maybe in 2017 they were a touch complacent, gave him no chance and so didn't bother putting the hobnail boots on, but that's as far as one can fairly go.
Eh? When did I say he had the press on his side?
You're half-right on 2019, on that occasion the Tories did finally get round to ensuring that voters knew just how odious Corbyn is, using the below-the-belt tactics of actually quoting his own words. However, by that stage I think most voters had worked it out for themselves, especially after Salisbury.
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
Because he wasn't monstered to quite the usual extent for a Labour leader not called Tony Blair, you mean.
No need for monstering, his own disgusting record was quite enough, as we found as soon as voters woke up to it.
The other thing about 2017 - now largely forgotten - was the absolutely vile and personal campaign against Theresa May that Labour (through proxies, mainly Momentum) ran on social media. It was quite extraordinarily unpleasant, but because it was aimed mainly at youngsters and was done on social media through videos which were then shared, it didn't really get noticed in the mainstream media.
And the carefully targeted, social media smearing of Corbyn by the Tories in 2019 was on an industrial scale. But c'mon, your point was he did well in 2017 because he had the press on his side. That's nonsense. There's no way you can argue with a straight face that the weighted mass of the British media were on the side of Jeremy Corbyn in either of the elections he fought. Ok, by 2019 they were giving him a bigger kicking, maybe in 2017 they were a touch complacent, gave him no chance and so didn't bother putting the hobnail boots on, but that's as far as one can fairly go.
I remember the GE of 2017 vividly. All the "absolute boy" bollocks. And the credulous lack of understanding of what Corbyn was about and what he stood for. He deserved to be annihilated in 2019 and thank god he was. At least we now have a respectable LOTO and the grip of the hard left on Labour has been broken.
Ok, that's your view of Corbyn and Corbynism (which I don't totally disagree with as it happens) but let's not pretend he ever had the press on his side.
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
Thank you. Some absolutely fascinating graphs and diagrams there.
And for our PB Village Tory,
"This goes beyond mere equity. The party faces a fight for its survival as the boomer cohort passes on. In the long run, how can a party which stands for the preservation and low taxation of capital survive if later cohorts do not accumulate any capital?
Inheritance won’t save it. The average millennial is set to receive theirs in their mid-sixties - well beyond their fertile years, and well beyond when they might hope to build a foundation for their later life (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2020). Leaving aside the distributive impact of inheritance (which is essentially untaxed), where the privileged are given a springboard well beyond necessity."
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
Yebbut, that would mean he might have to spend time looking for unicorns Brexit opportunities.
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
Yebbut, that would mean he might have to spend time looking for unicorns Brexit opportunities.
He has to be a piece of performance art, surely?
Or a sociological experiment, seeking to investigate how much superficial politeness is needed to compensate for how much deep nastiness.
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
Plus the assumption among many that the Tories were going to win handsomely ( a lot of the electorate would not notice the late swings) so that some people could indulge in Corbyn mania assuming that responsible adults would rescue them from the consequences of their vote. Like you I was astonished at the lack of scrutiny and also lack of attack from the Tory official campaign - they must have decided that negative campaigning would be counterproductive. Not so when too many thought Corbyn a harmless sincere anti-politician. Lib Dems also foolishly concentrated on exclusively attacking the Tories - they would be much better placed if they attacked both major parties hard.
And this is why I think Le Pen could still win on Sunday.
Lots of people don't like Macron. They don't like Le Pen either.
If it were a forced choice, they'd go with Macron.
But they'd rather not dirty their hands by actually voting for him, and if he's going to win anyway... And so a lot of his - rather shallow - vote stays home because they think he is home and dry.
Now, is this the most likely scenario?
Nope. But if I'm offered 20-1 on Le Pen, I might have a small nibble.
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
Yebbut, that would mean he might have to spend time looking for unicorns Brexit opportunities.
He has to be a piece of performance art, surely?
Or a sociological experiment, seeking to investigate how much superficial politeness is needed to compensate for how much deep nastiness.
I quite like the fact that a Minister is endeavouring to influence the Civil Service one way or another, however small and petty the attempt. Most in the present Government seem to be quite content with wherever below mediocre their departments are functioning. Patel is another honorable expection. They're also the ones who seem to get leaked against the most - funny that.
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
So every civil servant has an allocated desk?
There aren't many offices with a 100% utilisation rate - every desk occupied all the time. It means the office footprint of Government departments is far too large and the space should be sold off. These old buildings might look nice on the outside but they aren't fit for purpose as a modern workplace.
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
You're thinking of some sort of Department of Administrative Affairs, with a cabinet level minister?
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
So every civil servant has an allocated desk?
There aren't many offices with a 100% utilisation rate - every desk occupied all the time. It means the office footprint of Government departments is far too large and the space should be sold off. These old buildings might look nice on the outside but they aren't fit for purpose as a modern workplace.
Every civil servant certainly does not have an allocated desk. Many places have hot-desking arranagements. But do you think JRM knows that? Of course not.
I have to say that I am bored with Partygate and Tory MPs' endless fannying about over the leadership.
It's not that I don't want Johnson gone. I never wanted him in power in the first place. So can't vote for the Tories. Labour don't fill me with any enthusiasm at all. The Lib Dems are invisible.
I have received my postal vote. The only campaigning there has been has been from the local Tory and has been solely focused on local issues, of which there are plenty and really quite important for the local area.
I can't see anything get any better for a while - either nationally or internationally. So I may retire - Candide-like - to cultivate my garden and give up on politics for a bit. My tulip bed has been admired by BBC's Gardener's World and if that isn't an achievement to make a girl swoon with joy I don't know what is.
Are you and your tulip bed going to feature on the actual programme?
God, I think I'd die of happiness!
Anyway, sshhh - Monty Don is on now. He is planting a euphorbia mellifera for the first time. Where has he been?! I've had 2 in London for years now. And planted a couple in the tulip bed last year.
It has yellow flowers (bracts, really) with the most delicious honey smell in spring - right about now, in fact. And the zingiest green leaves. An absolute must have.
I'm with you on this. Corbyn's GE17 result was a genuine achievement. It can't all be explained away as down to Brexit and mistakes made by Mrs May. Some of it, yes, the result flattered him, just as the GE19 result did the opposite, but in 2017 there was widespread enthusiasm both for the man and the policies.
Only because he had a virtually free ride from the press, and almost zero effort by the Tories to ensure voters knew what he was like. (I kept waiting for the attacks to start, and they never came - it was absolutely weird). So I don't think many voters understood just how odious and anti-British he is, and they were voting for someone on whom they had projected completely false impressions. Luckily by 2019 the scales had to a large extent fallen from the eyes of the voters.
Because he wasn't monstered to quite the usual extent for a Labour leader not called Tony Blair, you mean.
No need for monstering, his own disgusting record was quite enough, as we found as soon as voters woke up to it.
The other thing about 2017 - now largely forgotten - was the absolutely vile and personal campaign against Theresa May that Labour (through proxies, mainly Momentum) ran on social media. It was quite extraordinarily unpleasant, but because it was aimed mainly at youngsters and was done on social media through videos which were then shared, it didn't really get noticed in the mainstream media.
And the carefully targeted, social media smearing of Corbyn by the Tories in 2019 was on an industrial scale. But c'mon, your point was he did well in 2017 because he had the press on his side. That's nonsense. There's no way you can argue with a straight face that the weighted mass of the British media were on the side of Jeremy Corbyn in either of the elections he fought. Ok, by 2019 they were giving him a bigger kicking, maybe in 2017 they were a touch complacent, gave him no chance and so didn't bother putting the hobnail boots on, but that's as far as one can fairly go.
Eh? When did I say he had the press on his side?
You're half-right on 2019, on that occasion the Tories did finally get round to ensuring that voters knew just how odious Corbyn is, using the below-the-belt tactics of actually quoting his own words. However, by that stage I think most voters had worked it out for themselves, especially after Salisbury.
You said he did well at GE17 because had a free ride from the press. That was where we came in. Now adjusted to what I think we're agreed on - that the press were against him in 2017 but not by as much as they were against him in 2019.
And ok, so if a smear campaign has a target you approve of it's both justified and is only saying what people in their heart of hearts already know to be true.
There's more bias in your analysis than in mine, don't you think?
I have little doubt that Macron will win but personally I would prefer an incompetent fascist who would probably wreck the French economy as Hollande did to an anti British pound shop Napoleon who fails to keep any promises he makes.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
I have to say that I am bored with Partygate and Tory MPs' endless fannying about over the leadership.
It's not that I don't want Johnson gone. I never wanted him in power in the first place. So can't vote for the Tories. Labour don't fill me with any enthusiasm at all. The Lib Dems are invisible.
I have received my postal vote. The only campaigning there has been has been from the local Tory and has been solely focused on local issues, of which there are plenty and really quite important for the local area.
I can't see anything get any better for a while - either nationally or internationally. So I may retire - Candide-like - to cultivate my garden and give up on politics for a bit. My tulip bed has been admired by BBC's Gardener's World and if that isn't an achievement to make a girl swoon with joy I don't know what is.
Are you and your tulip bed going to feature on the actual programme?
God, I think I'd die of happiness!
Anyway, sshhh - Monty Don is on now. He is planting a euphorbia mellifera for the first time. Where has he been?! I've had 2 in London for years now. And planted a couple in the tulip bed last year.
It has yellow flowers (bracts, really) with the most delicious honey smell in spring - right about now, in fact. And the zingiest green leaves. An absolute must have.
His garden looks like ours - the stones with moss, the ivy, the euphorbia, the iris …
Exclusive: Labour set to maintain advantage over Tories in London as PM's personal ratings in capital drop
Labour looks set to maintain their huge advantage over the Conservatives in London in next month's local elections as Boris Johnson's personal ratings in his former fiefdom drop sharply.
An exclusive poll for Sky News by Opinium suggests Labour would win 45% of the popular vote compared to 25% for the Conservatives, enough to ensure Keir Starmer's party maintain most of their power base in the city halls in the capital.
However this is a comparatively small advance on 2018 when London councils were last out for election and when Jeremy Corbyn's Labour was capitalising on Tory Brexit chaos meaning Labour won 44% of the vote and the Tories got 29%.
This means they may not gain many extra seats compared to 2018 when the capital's voters last elected their councillors.
Tories, LDs and Greens all look about right to me.
Labour only up 1% in London on 2018 would be a somewhat poor result though but this is the most credible looking London local election poll that I've seen.
2.5% swing since 2018 seems rather lower than I would have expected.
Thats because you like most PBers give Corbyn no credit for anything.
And May 2018 was not down to "Tory Brexit Chaos" either
I think most people credit Corbyn for his huge influence on the 2019 general election result. And rightly so.
But not his gains in 2017 or 2018 strange that
Also you dont think "Getting Brexit Done" and Labours stupid positioning on it were at all relevant?
Corbyn lost in 2017 as well...
Thanks for proving my point that most PBers are incapable of giving Corbyn credit for anything especially the 2017GE largest increase in vote since WW2
Hey John, can you tell me how the Con to Lab swing at GE2017 ranks since the war?
Was it say more impressive than the Con to Lab swing in say 1997?
Best Con to Lab swing in last 24 years and counting
NickPalmer said it best: Labour needs to be able to excite its true believers, without scaring the moderates (or worse, encouraging them to vote against you).
Corbyn managed the first. Starmer manages the second.
I have little doubt that Macron will win but personally I would prefer an incompetent fascist who would probably wreck the French economy as Hollande did to an anti British pound shop Napoleon who fails to keep any promises he makes.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Poor France. A worse choice of leader than Britain had in 2019 or the US had in 2020.
While I'm not a fan of his instinctive Anglophobia (and his behaviour with the AZ vaccine was disgraceful), he has done what no other French leader has done, and actually made some substantive changes to (a) labour market flexibility, (b) pensions, and (c) civil service employment. These have all been extremely unpopular (hence the gilets jaunes), but they were absolutely necessary and he pushed them through against domestic opposition where other leaders folded at the sight of street protests.
Yes, he's been a good president overall, despite various gaffes and his irritating style.
Just imagine how shit it would be to have a rubbish leader with various gaffes and an irritating style.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Imagine a party with a leader whose central obsession was much more obviously reminiscent of the third reich
Exclusive: Labour set to maintain advantage over Tories in London as PM's personal ratings in capital drop
Labour looks set to maintain their huge advantage over the Conservatives in London in next month's local elections as Boris Johnson's personal ratings in his former fiefdom drop sharply.
An exclusive poll for Sky News by Opinium suggests Labour would win 45% of the popular vote compared to 25% for the Conservatives, enough to ensure Keir Starmer's party maintain most of their power base in the city halls in the capital.
However this is a comparatively small advance on 2018 when London councils were last out for election and when Jeremy Corbyn's Labour was capitalising on Tory Brexit chaos meaning Labour won 44% of the vote and the Tories got 29%.
This means they may not gain many extra seats compared to 2018 when the capital's voters last elected their councillors.
Tories, LDs and Greens all look about right to me.
Labour only up 1% in London on 2018 would be a somewhat poor result though but this is the most credible looking London local election poll that I've seen.
2.5% swing since 2018 seems rather lower than I would have expected.
Thats because you like most PBers give Corbyn no credit for anything.
And May 2018 was not down to "Tory Brexit Chaos" either
I think most people credit Corbyn for his huge influence on the 2019 general election result. And rightly so.
But not his gains in 2017 or 2018 strange that
Also you dont think "Getting Brexit Done" and Labours stupid positioning on it were at all relevant?
Corbyn lost in 2017 as well...
Thanks for proving my point that most PBers are incapable of giving Corbyn credit for anything especially the 2017GE largest increase in vote since WW2
Hey John, can you tell me how the Con to Lab swing at GE2017 ranks since the war?
Was it say more impressive than the Con to Lab swing in say 1997?
Best Con to Lab swing in last 24 years and counting
NickPalmer said it best: Labour needs to be able to excite its true believers, without scaring the moderates (or worse, encouraging them to vote against you).
Corbyn managed the first. Starmer manages the second.
SKS has managed to lose a net 8 Councils and 337 Councillors so far compared to Corbyn.
Should be able to get those back and more on 5/5/22 surely given the total implosion of Tories
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
People are saying Jeremy Hunt is one of the leading candidates to replace Boris Johnson. A fun fact about Jeremy Hunt is that his name is rhyming slang for Boris Johnson
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
Exclusive: Labour set to maintain advantage over Tories in London as PM's personal ratings in capital drop
Labour looks set to maintain their huge advantage over the Conservatives in London in next month's local elections as Boris Johnson's personal ratings in his former fiefdom drop sharply.
An exclusive poll for Sky News by Opinium suggests Labour would win 45% of the popular vote compared to 25% for the Conservatives, enough to ensure Keir Starmer's party maintain most of their power base in the city halls in the capital.
However this is a comparatively small advance on 2018 when London councils were last out for election and when Jeremy Corbyn's Labour was capitalising on Tory Brexit chaos meaning Labour won 44% of the vote and the Tories got 29%.
This means they may not gain many extra seats compared to 2018 when the capital's voters last elected their councillors.
Tories, LDs and Greens all look about right to me.
Labour only up 1% in London on 2018 would be a somewhat poor result though but this is the most credible looking London local election poll that I've seen.
2.5% swing since 2018 seems rather lower than I would have expected.
Thats because you like most PBers give Corbyn no credit for anything.
And May 2018 was not down to "Tory Brexit Chaos" either
I think most people credit Corbyn for his huge influence on the 2019 general election result. And rightly so.
But not his gains in 2017 or 2018 strange that
Also you dont think "Getting Brexit Done" and Labours stupid positioning on it were at all relevant?
Corbyn lost in 2017 as well...
Thanks for proving my point that most PBers are incapable of giving Corbyn credit for anything especially the 2017GE largest increase in vote since WW2
Hey John, can you tell me how the Con to Lab swing at GE2017 ranks since the war?
Was it say more impressive than the Con to Lab swing in say 1997?
Best Con to Lab swing in last 24 years and counting
NickPalmer said it best: Labour needs to be able to excite its true believers, without scaring the moderates (or worse, encouraging them to vote against you).
Corbyn managed the first. Starmer manages the second.
SKS has managed to lose a net 8 Councils and 337 Councillors so far compared to Corbyn.
Should be able to get those back and more on 5/5/22 surely given the total implosion of Tories
At which point you will salute Starmer's performance?
People are saying Jeremy Hunt is one of the leading candidates to replace Boris Johnson. A fun fact about Jeremy Hunt is that his name is rhyming slang for Boris Johnson
People are saying Jeremy Hunt is one of the leading candidates to replace Boris Johnson. A fun fact about Jeremy Hunt is that his name is rhyming slang for Boris Johnson
Imagine a party whose leader was, in rhyming slang terms, a ranty wee shite.
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
You're thinking of some sort of Department of Administrative Affairs, with a cabinet level minister?
Jim Hacker would be a shining light in this Cabinet. What with his towering intellect, conviction and deep moral principles.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
Exclusive: Labour set to maintain advantage over Tories in London as PM's personal ratings in capital drop
Labour looks set to maintain their huge advantage over the Conservatives in London in next month's local elections as Boris Johnson's personal ratings in his former fiefdom drop sharply.
An exclusive poll for Sky News by Opinium suggests Labour would win 45% of the popular vote compared to 25% for the Conservatives, enough to ensure Keir Starmer's party maintain most of their power base in the city halls in the capital.
However this is a comparatively small advance on 2018 when London councils were last out for election and when Jeremy Corbyn's Labour was capitalising on Tory Brexit chaos meaning Labour won 44% of the vote and the Tories got 29%.
This means they may not gain many extra seats compared to 2018 when the capital's voters last elected their councillors.
Tories, LDs and Greens all look about right to me.
Labour only up 1% in London on 2018 would be a somewhat poor result though but this is the most credible looking London local election poll that I've seen.
2.5% swing since 2018 seems rather lower than I would have expected.
Thats because you like most PBers give Corbyn no credit for anything.
And May 2018 was not down to "Tory Brexit Chaos" either
I think most people credit Corbyn for his huge influence on the 2019 general election result. And rightly so.
But not his gains in 2017 or 2018 strange that
Also you dont think "Getting Brexit Done" and Labours stupid positioning on it were at all relevant?
Corbyn lost in 2017 as well...
Thanks for proving my point that most PBers are incapable of giving Corbyn credit for anything especially the 2017GE largest increase in vote since WW2
Hey John, can you tell me how the Con to Lab swing at GE2017 ranks since the war?
Was it say more impressive than the Con to Lab swing in say 1997?
Best Con to Lab swing in last 24 years and counting
NickPalmer said it best: Labour needs to be able to excite its true believers, without scaring the moderates (or worse, encouraging them to vote against you).
Corbyn managed the first. Starmer manages the second.
SKS has managed to lose a net 8 Councils and 337 Councillors so far compared to Corbyn.
Should be able to get those back and more on 5/5/22 surely given the total implosion of Tories
At which point you will salute Starmer's performance?
That's a negative, sir, only one living politician will ever be worthy of the Hitlergruß.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
@francska1 Russian state TV continues to be fixated on the UK
Last night the country's most popular channel suggested Boris Johnson's visit to India was an attempt to revive the British Empire's 19th century "Great Game" with Russia
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
You're thinking of some sort of Department of Administrative Affairs, with a cabinet level minister?
Jim Hacker would be a shining light in this Cabinet. What with his towering intellect, conviction and deep moral principles.
Certainly Sir Humphrey would be a shining light in the current civil service...
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
All the better if the mere announcement can achieve the desired effect without actually putting it into practice.
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
So every civil servant has an allocated desk?
There aren't many offices with a 100% utilisation rate - every desk occupied all the time. It means the office footprint of Government departments is far too large and the space should be sold off. These old buildings might look nice on the outside but they aren't fit for purpose as a modern workplace.
Too many desks, not enough meeting rooms. Plenty of organisations can redress that balance with the New Normal.
Anyone looking to buy a second hand desk should be able to pick up a bargain.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
@francska1 Russian state TV continues to be fixated on the UK
Last night the country's most popular channel suggested Boris Johnson's visit to India was an attempt to revive the British Empire's 19th century "Great Game" with Russia
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
You're thinking of some sort of Department of Administrative Affairs, with a cabinet level minister?
Jim Hacker would be a shining light in this Cabinet. What with his towering intellect, conviction and deep moral principles.
Certainly Sir Humphrey would be a shining light in the current civil service...
Jim Hacker did try to abolish the Department of Education.
Didn't succeed, but his heart was in the right place.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
Well, no, because the mass gassing had actually started some time in advance of the Wannsee Conference. It had been called to inform other departments of what was happening as it would now start to impinge on their work.
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
There's an Opportunity there for an Efficiency Minister not to waste his time with such passive-aggressive bollocks.
You're thinking of some sort of Department of Administrative Affairs, with a cabinet level minister?
Jim Hacker would be a shining light in this Cabinet. What with his towering intellect, conviction and deep moral principles.
Certainly Sir Humphrey would be a shining light in the current civil service...
Jim Hacker did try to abolish the Department of Education.
Didn't succeed, but his heart was in the right place.
And in his day there were only 2000 not 5000 of the Oedipus Complexers...
There aren't many offices with a 100% utilisation rate - every desk occupied all the time. It means the office footprint of Government departments is far too large and the space should be sold off. These old buildings might look nice on the outside but they aren't fit for purpose as a modern workplace.
Too many desks, not enough meeting rooms. Plenty of organisations can redress that balance with the New Normal.
Anyone looking to buy a second hand desk should be able to pick up a bargain.
This is what we are seeing. I thought we would see a huge reduction in office space but instead what's happening is an extensive re-purposing of that space away from desks and cubicles to open plan collaboration spaces, networking areas and, as you say, meeting areas of variable capacity.
A real revolution in ergonomics.
Some, however, are going further - I believe Durham CC are going to sell their new £50 million HQ building to the University:
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
Exclusive: Labour set to maintain advantage over Tories in London as PM's personal ratings in capital drop
Labour looks set to maintain their huge advantage over the Conservatives in London in next month's local elections as Boris Johnson's personal ratings in his former fiefdom drop sharply.
An exclusive poll for Sky News by Opinium suggests Labour would win 45% of the popular vote compared to 25% for the Conservatives, enough to ensure Keir Starmer's party maintain most of their power base in the city halls in the capital.
However this is a comparatively small advance on 2018 when London councils were last out for election and when Jeremy Corbyn's Labour was capitalising on Tory Brexit chaos meaning Labour won 44% of the vote and the Tories got 29%.
This means they may not gain many extra seats compared to 2018 when the capital's voters last elected their councillors.
Tories, LDs and Greens all look about right to me.
Labour only up 1% in London on 2018 would be a somewhat poor result though but this is the most credible looking London local election poll that I've seen.
2.5% swing since 2018 seems rather lower than I would have expected.
I've been quite cautious about London all along to be honest and have said that I don't expect more than a 4% swing to Labour.
I don't really know how things will play out in terms of anti Conservative tactical voting and churn TBH and would also expect Labour to lose ground to the Greens in some areas and maybe a bit to the LDs in Merton.
If I had to predict I would probably predict small Tory majority in Westminster and Barnet and a small Lab majority in Wandsworth but it is possible Lab gains no councils.
On the plus side for Labour, LDs aren't standing in every ward in some councils like Barnet however.
If the 4% decline in Tory voteshare in London on 2018 in that poll is replicated in a 4% swing to Labour via tactical voting, then Labour would gain Wandsworth and Barnet. However the Tories would hold Westminster
Out for dinner again, and I’ve found another delicious meal. I had croquetas to start - one spinach, one chicken and one blue cheese. Next was “calamares embriagados”, or intoxicated squid - cooked with tomatoes, onions, garlic and loads of red wine. Now having stir fried cuttlefish with prawns, peas and mint.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
Well, no, because the mass gassing had actually started some time in advance of the Wannsee Conference. It had been called to inform other departments of what was happening as it would now start to impinge on their work.
Really not much of an overlap, and not very "mass," prior to Wannsee.
@francska1 Russian state TV continues to be fixated on the UK
Last night the country's most popular channel suggested Boris Johnson's visit to India was an attempt to revive the British Empire's 19th century "Great Game" with Russia
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
Well, no, because the mass gassing had actually started some time in advance of the Wannsee Conference. It had been called to inform other departments of what was happening as it would now start to impinge on their work.
Really not much of an overlap, and not very "mass," prior to Wannsee.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I have little doubt that Macron will win but personally I would prefer an incompetent fascist who would probably wreck the French economy as Hollande did to an anti British pound shop Napoleon who fails to keep any promises he makes.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I suspect that your problem (or rather one of them) is that you have no first hand idea of what the third world is actually like, because you have never been there. What it is, is third world. Really third world. You know the prison in Midnight Express? Same but more so.
Out for dinner again, and I’ve found another delicious meal. I had croquetas to start - one spinach, one chicken and one blue cheese. Next was “calamares embriagados”, or intoxicated squid - cooked with tomatoes, onions, garlic and loads of red wine. Now having stir fried cuttlefish with prawns, peas and mint.
I'm watching Stanley Tucci in Milan now. When you've finished with Barcelona you should try Milan. A fantastic city. I had more fun in Milan than anywhere. The Italians have a love of life that I've never seen anywhere else. Keep going with your travelogue. It's very good
Out for dinner again, and I’ve found another delicious meal. I had croquetas to start - one spinach, one chicken and one blue cheese. Next was “calamares embriagados”, or intoxicated squid - cooked with tomatoes, onions, garlic and loads of red wine. Now having stir fried cuttlefish with prawns, peas and mint.
I'm watching Stanley Tucci in Milan now. When you've finished with Barcelona you should try Milan. A fantastic city. I had more fun in Milan than anywhere. The Italians have a love of life that I've never seen anywhere else. Keep going with your travelogue. It's very good
Thank you Roger! I’d love to head off to Milan, but sadly I have to go home on Monday and try to find a job and somewhere to live..
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I suspect that your problem (or rather one of them) is that you have no first hand idea of what the third world is actually like, because you have never been there. What it is, is third world. Really third world. You know the prison in Midnight Express? Same but more so.
The Third World? I assume you mean "developing nations", after all we don't want to use disparaging terminology do we? You assume an awful lot, maybe because you have in your mind the idea that anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have the obvious intellect and experience you do.
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
Thank you. Some absolutely fascinating graphs and diagrams there.
And for our PB Village Tory,
"This goes beyond mere equity. The party faces a fight for its survival as the boomer cohort passes on. In the long run, how can a party which stands for the preservation and low taxation of capital survive if later cohorts do not accumulate any capital?
Inheritance won’t save it. The average millennial is set to receive theirs in their mid-sixties - well beyond their fertile years, and well beyond when they might hope to build a foundation for their later life (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2020). Leaving aside the distributive impact of inheritance (which is essentially untaxed), where the privileged are given a springboard well beyond necessity."
It also ignores the fact most people are still on the property ladder, at least with a mortgage, by 39.
Yes fewer 20 and early 30 year olds own property and are voting Tory than in the early 1990s but more pensioners are voting Conservative and over 40s are still voting Tory. Hence the Tory majority in 2019 was bigger than in 1992
Slovenia votes on Sunday and we have the final Mediana poll out.
It puts Robert Golob's Svoboda movement just ahead of Janez Jansa's Slovenian Democratic Party. Other polls suggest a small lead for Jansa but either way it looks very close.
Mediana has Svoboda on 26.1% with SDS on 24.4% .
Perhaps encouraging for Golob, the Social Democrats are on 7.8% and the Left on 7.7% tied with the pro-Jansa Christian Democrats. Alenka Bratusek's Party also looks likely to be in the new National Assembly with 5.8%.
Jansa and his allies are on just 35.2% and from this distance it seems possible Golob could build a majority centrist coalition perhaps with the Social Democrats and the Bratusek list supported by the Left.
We'll see if this poll is anywhere near the truth on Sunday evening.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
Out for dinner again, and I’ve found another delicious meal. I had croquetas to start - one spinach, one chicken and one blue cheese. Next was “calamares embriagados”, or intoxicated squid - cooked with tomatoes, onions, garlic and loads of red wine. Now having stir fried cuttlefish with prawns, peas and mint.
Are you positive that "croquetas" are not "croaking tiny tortoises"? Best ask your waiter!
Comments
It is the 20th May that the focus is on. BYOB. Email to all and sundry across Whitehall etc etc...
So that leaves three elections where they were in opposition: which means he was first and last.
https://davidallengreen.com/2022/04/why-it-will-really-matter-when-the-prime-minister-realised-he-had-misled-the-house-of-commons-even-if-his-four-misleading-statements-were-in-good-faith/
https://order-order.com/2022/04/20/corbyn-claims-he-doesnt-know-if-he-admires-zelensky-refuses-to-rule-out-starting-new-party/
When asked if he admires Zelensky as a leader, Corbyn claimed he “doesn’t know” because he’s “never met him.” Presumably he spent plenty of time with Mary Wollstonecraft then, because he’s previously insisted she’s his “political hero”…
Lots of people don't like Macron. They don't like Le Pen either.
If it were a forced choice, they'd go with Macron.
But they'd rather not dirty their hands by actually voting for him, and if he's going to win anyway... And so a lot of his - rather shallow - vote stays home because they think he is home and dry.
Now, is this the most likely scenario?
Nope. But if I'm offered 20-1 on Le Pen, I might have a small nibble.
(It's not Putin, is it?)
You're half-right on 2019, on that occasion the Tories did finally get round to ensuring that voters knew just how odious Corbyn is, using the below-the-belt tactics of actually quoting his own words. However, by that stage I think most voters had worked it out for themselves, especially after Salisbury.
https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1517561184072962048?s=20&t=r1oznSlb5XBnAEYJUyYJQA
How about sorting out the cost of living crisis, kicking out the liar in Number 10, or fixing public services, Jacob, instead of wasting your time on outmoded presenteeism?
And for our PB Village Tory,
"This goes beyond mere equity. The party faces a fight for its survival as the boomer cohort passes on. In the long run, how can a party which stands for the preservation and low taxation of capital survive if later cohorts do not accumulate any capital?
Inheritance won’t save it. The average millennial is set to receive theirs in their mid-sixties - well beyond their fertile years, and well beyond when they might hope to build a foundation for their later life (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2020). Leaving aside the distributive impact of inheritance (which is essentially untaxed), where the privileged are given a springboard well beyond necessity."
Or a sociological experiment, seeking to investigate how much superficial politeness is needed to compensate for how much deep nastiness.
Corbyn doesn't do personal attacks
Not far away from your figure.
http://www.hisutton.com/Russian-Navy-Moskva-Cruiser-Wreck.html
A vessel built for the Czar, was used by the communists, and now by the fascist Russian regime. Still in roughly the same role: salvage.
There aren't many offices with a 100% utilisation rate - every desk occupied all the time. It means the office footprint of Government departments is far too large and the space should be sold off. These old buildings might look nice on the outside but they aren't fit for purpose as a modern workplace.
https://twitter.com/edballs/status/1517559778964353029
Anyway, sshhh - Monty Don is on now. He is planting a euphorbia mellifera for the first time. Where has he been?! I've had 2 in London for years now. And planted a couple in the tulip bed last year.
It has yellow flowers (bracts, really) with the most delicious honey smell in spring - right about now, in fact. And the zingiest green leaves. An absolute must have.
And ok, so if a smear campaign has a target you approve of it's both justified and is only saying what people in their heart of hearts already know to be true.
There's more bias in your analysis than in mine, don't you think?
Corbyn managed the first. Starmer manages the second.
I am OK with that!!
So you want the French to suffer.
Well, it's a view.
https://twitter.com/Parody_PM/status/1517583357483307010/photo/1
Now, having recognised your obsession, you need to get help for it.
*shudders*
Should be able to get those back and more on 5/5/22 surely given the total implosion of Tories
ETA and in plaintext, cttoi, so it's a twofer.
What with his towering intellect, conviction and deep moral principles.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
Anyone looking to buy a second hand desk should be able to pick up a bargain.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
Didn't succeed, but his heart was in the right place.
A real revolution in ergonomics.
Some, however, are going further - I believe Durham CC are going to sell their new £50 million HQ building to the University:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-61154878
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I'm back playing cricket from next week, we've entered Last Man Stands
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
https://twitter.com/andrewmaybin/status/1517591964170035203
Not that I have anything against India, you'll understand. I just don't want him anywhere near me.
Perhaps they could exchange him for some Russian weaponry, fulfilling all criteria?
Yes fewer 20 and early 30 year olds own property and are voting Tory than in the early 1990s but more pensioners are voting Conservative and over 40s are still voting Tory. Hence the Tory majority in 2019 was bigger than in 1992
@AndrewMarr9, @anoosh_c, and @freddiejh8 discuss partygate, Boris Johnson’s survival, and who the next Tory leader could be.
Watch here: https://youtu.be/Rxq-8kXYc1I https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1517594092468940800/video/1
It puts Robert Golob's Svoboda movement just ahead of Janez Jansa's Slovenian Democratic Party. Other polls suggest a small lead for Jansa but either way it looks very close.
Mediana has Svoboda on 26.1% with SDS on 24.4% .
Perhaps encouraging for Golob, the Social Democrats are on 7.8% and the Left on 7.7% tied with the pro-Jansa Christian Democrats. Alenka Bratusek's Party also looks likely to be in the new National Assembly with 5.8%.
Jansa and his allies are on just 35.2% and from this distance it seems possible Golob could build a majority centrist coalition perhaps with the Social Democrats and the Bratusek list supported by the Left.
We'll see if this poll is anywhere near the truth on Sunday evening.