The LDs would fancy their chances if Parish resigns – politicalbetting.com

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Hope there is a thread tomorrow on 25 years since Blair's New Labour victory.

Technically that was the 2nd...

(Autocorrect made that 'end' which works after a fashion....)

GE was held on 1st, but I see what you mean.

"A new dawn" etc etc

A fantastic night for those of us who longed for an end to years of Tory sleaze and bollocks. My wife and I stayed up all night.

Valpurgis night

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Hope there is a thread tomorrow on 25 years since Blair's New Labour victory.

Technically that was the 2nd...

(Autocorrect made that 'end' which works after a fashion....)

GE was held on 1st, but I see what you mean.

"A new dawn" etc etc

A fantastic night for those of us who longed for an end to years of Tory sleaze and bollocks. My wife and I stayed up all night.

Really? A feat even Bill clinton would have struggled to emulate

It's a shame that Tory sleaze and bollocks was imply replaced by even more imposing Labour sleaze and bollocks. Bit of a let-down for us all.

This afternoon Ukraine announced that it had liberated four more villages (Ruska Lozova, Slobidske, Prelesne and Verkhnia Rohanka) from the outskirts of Kharkiv. This follows the recapture of Momotove yesterday. Ukrainian forces continue to push Russia back from Kharkiv city.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1520464651884298240

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

To improve the HoL, simply remove the power of PM’s patronage, and leave it to an Appointments Commission.

Each parliamentary term, appoint 30 peers in proportion to a party’s vote taken at the last election, and a further 20 cross-benchers.

Powerful old committee, that. Who gets to appoint it?

If you aren't a federal government, unicameral is the way to go, as in plucky little Ukraine, Sweden, NZ etc. Our own dear HoL patently evolved by accidents of history, not with any directed purpose in mind. Away with it.

My first choice is abolition and going unicameral, with beefed up select committees to revise legislation before a final vote.

If we stick with a second chamber, I would have local governments do the selection from amongst councillors and send them on non renewable 10 year terms. 1 per 100k population.

It would encourage interest in local government, give broad geographical representation, cover all successful parties, allow independents, be democratic, but indirect so not a direct rival to the Commons. This is how the US Senate was chosen until senators became directly elected.

The question is whether the HoL performs an important role in our democracy. If it does not, we should become unicameral. If it does, we should keep and evolve it to better fulfil that role.

Personally, I think it does fulfil a role in examining legislation, and potentially modifying it. Also: its biggest problem isn't lack of elections, but too much politicos and partisanship.

Our national politicians on the whole are pretty crap, our local ones are largely worse. I see no need to have politicians as part of the second chamber. I might go with foxy's suggestion about former pms but on the whole I am of the view that keeping politicians out of politics as much as possible would lead to better governance

The story Angela Rayner branded ‘a desperate, perverted smear’ was actually a story told by Angela Rayner herself, about herself. The language the PM condemned as ‘appalling, sexist, misogynist tripe’ was Angela Rayner’s language. The claim the Speaker condemned as ‘misogynistic and offensive’ was her own.

Two weeks ago, as Tory whips desperately attempted to corral their MPs into blocking an inquiry by the Privileges Committee into whether the PM lied to the Commons over Partygate, Rayner tweeted: ‘You want the truth? They can’t handle the truth.’

But after the events of the past seven days, a separate question must now be posed. Can she?

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/176486

One thing that isn't getting enough attention is the blockade on Odessa. How can it be stopped?

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

To improve the HoL, simply remove the power of PM’s patronage, and leave it to an Appointments Commission.

Each parliamentary term, appoint 30 peers in proportion to a party’s vote taken at the last election, and a further 20 cross-benchers.

Powerful old committee, that. Who gets to appoint it?

If you aren't a federal government, unicameral is the way to go, as in plucky little Ukraine, Sweden, NZ etc. Our own dear HoL patently evolved by accidents of history, not with any directed purpose in mind. Away with it.

My first choice is abolition and going unicameral, with beefed up select committees to revise legislation before a final vote.

If we stick with a second chamber, I would have local governments do the selection from amongst councillors and send them on non renewable 10 year terms. 1 per 100k population.

It would encourage interest in local government, give broad geographical representation, cover all successful parties, allow independents, be democratic, but indirect so not a direct rival to the Commons. This is how the US Senate was chosen until senators became directly elected.

The question is whether the HoL performs an important role in our democracy. If it does not, we should become unicameral. If it does, we should keep and evolve it to better fulfil that role.

Personally, I think it does fulfil a role in examining legislation, and potentially modifying it. Also: its biggest problem isn't lack of elections, but too much politicos and partisanship.

I think it just lets the Commons pass craply written laws, expecting that the Lords can polish the turd, and return something less obviously crap.

It allows the Commons to be lazy. If the HoC couldn't rely on the Lords to sort out their half arsed efforts then they might need to do some work themselves.

CarlottaVance said:

The story Angela Rayner branded ‘a desperate, perverted smear’ was actually a story told by Angela Rayner herself, about herself. The language the PM condemned as ‘appalling, sexist, misogynist tripe’ was Angela Rayner’s language. The claim the Speaker condemned as ‘misogynistic and offensive’ was her own.

Two weeks ago, as Tory whips desperately attempted to corral their MPs into blocking an inquiry by the Privileges Committee into whether the PM lied to the Commons over Partygate, Rayner tweeted: ‘You want the truth? They can’t handle the truth.’

But after the events of the past seven days, a separate question must now be posed. Can she?

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/176486

What has the Mail on Sunday got for us this week then?

They had better stop teasing us and start coming up with some credible evidence to support their self hyped onslaught on Labour, or else their own doing is actually bolstering Rayner and the mail the only ones keeping Partygate in peoples minds when they vote this week.

CarlottaVance said:

The story Angela Rayner branded ‘a desperate, perverted smear’ was actually a story told by Angela Rayner herself, about herself. The language the PM condemned as ‘appalling, sexist, misogynist tripe’ was Angela Rayner’s language. The claim the Speaker condemned as ‘misogynistic and offensive’ was her own.

Two weeks ago, as Tory whips desperately attempted to corral their MPs into blocking an inquiry by the Privileges Committee into whether the PM lied to the Commons over Partygate, Rayner tweeted: ‘You want the truth? They can’t handle the truth.’

But after the events of the past seven days, a separate question must now be posed. Can she?

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/176486

So the Mail’s story, which claimed that Tory MPs had come forward to accuse Rayner of “Basic Instinct” was wrong.

The whole thing is a bullshit dead cat, contrived to take heat off Boris. It was kind of working, until Neil Paris started masturbating to tractor porn.

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

To improve the HoL, simply remove the power of PM’s patronage, and leave it to an Appointments Commission.

Each parliamentary term, appoint 30 peers in proportion to a party’s vote taken at the last election, and a further 20 cross-benchers.

Powerful old committee, that. Who gets to appoint it?

If you aren't a federal government, unicameral is the way to go, as in plucky little Ukraine, Sweden, NZ etc. Our own dear HoL patently evolved by accidents of history, not with any directed purpose in mind. Away with it.

My first choice is abolition and going unicameral, with beefed up select committees to revise legislation before a final vote.

If we stick with a second chamber, I would have local governments do the selection from amongst councillors and send them on non renewable 10 year terms. 1 per 100k population.

It would encourage interest in local government, give broad geographical representation, cover all successful parties, allow independents, be democratic, but indirect so not a direct rival to the Commons. This is how the US Senate was chosen until senators became directly elected.

The question is whether the HoL performs an important role in our democracy. If it does not, we should become unicameral. If it does, we should keep and evolve it to better fulfil that role.

Personally, I think it does fulfil a role in examining legislation, and potentially modifying it. Also: its biggest problem isn't lack of elections, but too much politicos and partisanship.

NZ is unicameral, and - at times - it “shows”. The quid pro quo is that our terms are only three years, but this causes problems of its own.

Nigelb said:

Azerbaijan’s president Aliyev says Ukraine should never ever agree on occupation, rely on its resources and fight back to protect what it has

He says Azerbaijan has good relations with Russia but Baku has always supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity, “we aren’t hiding”
https://mobile.twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1520388882445045761

Weren't Russia supporting the other side in the recent war with Armenia?

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

kjh said:

NickPalmer said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.

Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.

Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.

Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.

The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.

To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.

The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.

That's where we should be concentrating our fire.

I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.

Which is why I am suggesting we should abolish the whole lot.

If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.

Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.

I'm in favour of electing them, but for life. So not much change. The parties get a share of Lords appointments according to their vote share at GE. Lords encouraged to retire sooner. It wouldn't eliminate the patronage, but would be fairer.

If there was a change to that model it'd almost certainly finish up far worse in my view. You'd finish up with a far more politicised chamber with some complete nutters. It would entirely cease to function.

I don't really like the way things work at the moment, but it does seem the most likely system to maintain some sort of worthwhile function.

I don't see that it would be far more politicised. As for nutters, the low number of places on offer over all would mean fringe parties would get very little actual look in, but yes, there would be slightly fewer Tories, and more places offered to the likes of the SNP. I think that would be a good thing.

Well it depends a lot on the election mechanism of course, but clearly you'd have to have some sort of electioneering and that'd undoubtedly be on a party basis. You'd also certainly have all the odd people trying to get in - Brian Rose, Count Binface, George Galloway etc. Now that's not all bad as we can see from Binface being in the list (!), but you get the idea.

We'd also not have the resource of the various academic types.

The way I envisage it, there would be no elections. Just a divvying up of the available appointment slots between the parties according to GE vote share.

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a real shame one of the Lords Spiritual hasn't been caught doing this.

Just so I could make a joke about bashing the bishop.

I mitre guessed you would think of that.

That’s because you’re crozier than he is

I was just throne it out there.

I guess you thought you stole it with that one?

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

To improve the HoL, simply remove the power of PM’s patronage, and leave it to an Appointments Commission.

Each parliamentary term, appoint 30 peers in proportion to a party’s vote taken at the last election, and a further 20 cross-benchers.

Powerful old committee, that. Who gets to appoint it?

If you aren't a federal government, unicameral is the way to go, as in plucky little Ukraine, Sweden, NZ etc. Our own dear HoL patently evolved by accidents of history, not with any directed purpose in mind. Away with it.

My first choice is abolition and going unicameral, with beefed up select committees to revise legislation before a final vote.

If we stick with a second chamber, I would have local governments do the selection from amongst councillors and send them on non renewable 10 year terms. 1 per 100k population.

It would encourage interest in local government, give broad geographical representation, cover all successful parties, allow independents, be democratic, but indirect so not a direct rival to the Commons. This is how the US Senate was chosen until senators became directly elected.

The question is whether the HoL performs an important role in our democracy. If it does not, we should become unicameral. If it does, we should keep and evolve it to better fulfil that role.

Personally, I think it does fulfil a role in examining legislation, and potentially modifying it. Also: its biggest problem isn't lack of elections, but too much politicos and partisanship.

I think it just lets the Commons pass craply written laws, expecting that the Lords can polish the turd, and return something less obviously crap.

It allows the Commons to be lazy. If the HoC couldn't rely on the Lords to sort out their half arsed efforts then they might need to do some work themselves.

Although then again they might not.

Expecting Jacob Rees-Mogg to show intelligence merely because nobody would be there to suit out the mess he makes would be like expecting Donald Trump to post a sane tweet merely because he might not be modded.

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a real shame one of the Lords Spiritual hasn't been caught doing this.

Just so I could make a joke about bashing the bishop.

I mitre guessed you would think of that.

That’s because you’re crozier than he is

I was just throne it out there.

I guess you thought you stole it with that one?

I did. Your attempts to steal my thunder are definitely surplice to requirements.

Gardenwalker said:

CarlottaVance said:

The story Angela Rayner branded ‘a desperate, perverted smear’ was actually a story told by Angela Rayner herself, about herself. The language the PM condemned as ‘appalling, sexist, misogynist tripe’ was Angela Rayner’s language. The claim the Speaker condemned as ‘misogynistic and offensive’ was her own.

Two weeks ago, as Tory whips desperately attempted to corral their MPs into blocking an inquiry by the Privileges Committee into whether the PM lied to the Commons over Partygate, Rayner tweeted: ‘You want the truth? They can’t handle the truth.’

But after the events of the past seven days, a separate question must now be posed. Can she?

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/176486

So the Mail’s story, which claimed that Tory MPs had come forward to accuse Rayner of “Basic Instinct” was wrong.

The whole thing is a bullshit dead cat, contrived to take heat off Boris. It was kind of working, until Neil Paris started masturbating to tractor porn.

I’m suspecting it’s not simply the mail, but Boris number 10 dirty tricks team driving this, to me there is a perfectly clear strategy to Generate traction in a media narrative about Labour front bench being liars, untrustworthy and, in this Rayner story, a bit underhand and dirty in modus operandi - very much a negative strategy, not a “good government and Strong Boris news” one.

I think their decision to go very negative now is realising their imminent difficulty when Boris gets fined again, and again, and again. They dismissed the first with “pah, 15 minutes one cake” but multiple fines for government front bench for partygate really needs opposition front bench tarred in similar way not to look so squeaky clean.

They are not getting much help from Times, Telegraph, express and Sun. Perhaps under present ownership Express can support Tories, but only in positive not negative way, and Murdoch empire hedging its bets expecting Tories to fall and be out 10yrs

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
2h
Just one point on tonight's Angela Rayner story. We first approached Labour on Tuesday for a response to the fact four MPs had independently confirmed her comments on the Terrace. We have yet to receive a response.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1520452144561803264

Seriously who the fuck cares?

Only those who have the seemingly deluded view that politicians should tell the truth. A mad concept I know, but we live in hope.

Foxy said:

Tres said:

I guess the home of Sarah Vine knows which buttons to push to excite their readers. However the Mail's flailing over Rayner is starting to get a little embarrassing for the rest of us...

The Mail really hates Rayner for being a successful working class woman, unashamed of her origins, and it shows. No doubt the feeling is mutual.

They didn't hate Linda Lee-Potter.

The Mail is the paper for dried up old bigots who resent that other people have a sex life.

The Express is the same, but for the very hard of thinking.

Foxy's suggestion for electing Lords from local governments reminds me of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the direct election of United States senators in each state. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held.

The amendment was proposed by the 62nd Congress in 1912 and became part of the Constitution on April 8, 1913, on ratification by three-quarters (36) of the state legislatures.

Is it possible that, once Lords were elected, there would be an effort to change the laws in order to elect them directly? (I have no opinion on whether electing Lords, directly or indirectly, would improve your legislature, not knowing enough about how your upper House operates, now.)

(At least one senator, Boies Penrose, was delighted by the change to direct elections. He thought his reputation was so bad that the Pennsylvania legislature would not have dared to elect him. But the people did, in 1914.)

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Azerbaijan’s president Aliyev says Ukraine should never ever agree on occupation, rely on its resources and fight back to protect what it has

He says Azerbaijan has good relations with Russia but Baku has always supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity, “we aren’t hiding”
https://mobile.twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1520388882445045761

Weren't Russia supporting the other side in the recent war with Armenia?

Yes.

The Azeris were aided by the Turks. Armenia by Russia

Turkey is also helping Ukraine

Turkey v Russia is a subplot of this war

A old one, as in the song about Abdul and Ivan.

IshmaelZ said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Foxy said:

Tres said:

I guess the home of Sarah Vine knows which buttons to push to excite their readers. However the Mail's flailing over Rayner is starting to get a little embarrassing for the rest of us...

The Mail really hates Rayner for being a successful working class woman, unashamed of her origins, and it shows. No doubt the feeling is mutual.

They didn't hate Linda Lee-Potter.

An uncle Tom if ever there was one.

An unfairly maligned literary character if ever there was one.

Luckyguy1983 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Foxy said:

Tres said:

I guess the home of Sarah Vine knows which buttons to push to excite their readers. However the Mail's flailing over Rayner is starting to get a little embarrassing for the rest of us...

The Mail really hates Rayner for being a successful working class woman, unashamed of her origins, and it shows. No doubt the feeling is mutual.

They didn't hate Linda Lee-Potter.

An uncle Tom if ever there was one.

An unfairly maligned literary character if ever there was one.

Uncle Tom, not Linda Lee-Potter.

MoonRabbit said:

One front page is ready, the Indy, headline story is number 10 just can’t stop briefing against number 11.

Is Boris planning replacing Sunak with Truss quite soon? Can Boris get away with a reshuffle doing this now? Is Sunak so hollowed out already as to be no threat to big dog? Could Boris then try Patel as foreign Secretary?

Heavens above, Truss is bad, Patel would see us all vaporised in about five minutes.

Carnyx said:

Just noticed #cornhub is actually 'trending' on Twitter.

One example piced at random:

https://twitter.com/RichardCllr/status/1520474562156281858?cxt=HHwWhIC-9d7j55kqAAAA

Don't lookup Only Farms

Foxy said:

The rehearsals for the Victory Day parade in St Peterburg do rather have a whiff of Leni Riefensthal about them:

https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1520466096662405120?t=f0kznexPTx3nnZ3jkl2RNQ&s=19

March of the widows.

Gardenwalker said:

The Mail is the paper for dried up old bigots who resent that other people have a sex life.

The Express is the same, but for the very hard of thinking.

I'm curious those papers have their world view and then I listened to the Russian State TV panellists and their extraordinary world view (apparently one of them wants to fire a nuclear missile at London claiming the British isles will cease to exist 202 seconds later - a cheery thought).

I find both world views mystifying and repellent in equal measure.

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

One front page is ready, the Indy, headline story is number 10 just can’t stop briefing against number 11.

Is Boris planning replacing Sunak with Truss quite soon? Can Boris get away with a reshuffle doing this now? Is Sunak so hollowed out already as to be no threat to big dog? Could Boris then try Patel as foreign Secretary?

No, Johnson will bring in some reliable nonentity.

Gavin Williamson for example

Unlikely to bring Gav back, but Shapps could get a big promotion in the reshuffle. It will also be really clever for Boris to bring 2019 intake into cabinet, like the talented Dehenna Davison,

Paging Boris Johnson 😆 https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1520479849378422785/photo/1

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

One front page is ready, the Indy, headline story is number 10 just can’t stop briefing against number 11.

Is Boris planning replacing Sunak with Truss quite soon? Can Boris get away with a reshuffle doing this now? Is Sunak so hollowed out already as to be no threat to big dog? Could Boris then try Patel as foreign Secretary?

Heavens above, Truss is bad, Patel would see us all vaporised in about five minutes.

A tad over the top Doctor! Boris may well use Sunak as scapegoat and shuffle his cabinet heavyweights if under pressure in coming months, it’s not to unbelievable to imagine that happening.

Another enormous score for King Harry Brook setting Yorkshire up for another win. Now I know it’s on a YouTube Chanel I watch some of it and his batting was amazing.

Is it just me or are there many more big individual scores being made this season than in previous years?

Benpointer said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

One front page is ready, the Indy, headline story is number 10 just can’t stop briefing against number 11.

Is Boris planning replacing Sunak with Truss quite soon? Can Boris get away with a reshuffle doing this now? Is Sunak so hollowed out already as to be no threat to big dog? Could Boris then try Patel as foreign Secretary?

Heavens above, Truss is bad, Patel would see us all vaporised in about five minutes.

A tad over the top Doctor! Boris may well use Sunak as scapegoat and shuffle his cabinet heavyweights if under pressure in coming months, it’s not to unbelievable to imagine that happening.

Another enormous score for King Harry Brook setting Yorkshire up for another win. Now I know it’s on a YouTube Chanel I watch some of it and his batting was amazing.

Is it just me or are there many more big individual scores being made this season than in previous years?

Very dry spring weather?

MoonRabbit said:

2 more papers. Express warn Putin has an army of saboteurs sent to UK to humiliate us. Very creepy.

I havn’t a clue what the Stars front page news is saying.

By leaking our MPs' browsing habits ?

MoonRabbit said:

2 more papers. Express warn Putin has an army of saboteurs sent to UK to humiliate us. Very creepy.

I havn’t a clue what the Stars front page news is saying.

Telegraph also have an army of saboteurs looking to wreck UK, but this time it’s a 5th column of rail Union members. They also have an odd story where Tory Party want 50% ladies and 50% men MPs in future as answer to sleaze issues.

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

CarlottaVance said:

The story Angela Rayner branded ‘a desperate, perverted smear’ was actually a story told by Angela Rayner herself, about herself. The language the PM condemned as ‘appalling, sexist, misogynist tripe’ was Angela Rayner’s language. The claim the Speaker condemned as ‘misogynistic and offensive’ was her own.

Two weeks ago, as Tory whips desperately attempted to corral their MPs into blocking an inquiry by the Privileges Committee into whether the PM lied to the Commons over Partygate, Rayner tweeted: ‘You want the truth? They can’t handle the truth.’

But after the events of the past seven days, a separate question must now be posed. Can she?

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/176486

So the Mail’s story, which claimed that Tory MPs had come forward to accuse Rayner of “Basic Instinct” was wrong.

The whole thing is a bullshit dead cat, contrived to take heat off Boris. It was kind of working, until Neil Paris started masturbating to tractor porn.

The funniest thing about the Mail's misogyny is that it has led to a Tory MP resigning over his porno habits, leading to a byelection.

Karma...

And we all now know that tractor porn is a thing. Which I didn't. Though I have a book on old tractors.

Imagine being a MP remembered for duck houses, or moats, or tractor porn ...

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

2 more papers. Express warn Putin has an army of saboteurs sent to UK to humiliate us. Very creepy.

I havn’t a clue what the Stars front page news is saying.

Telegraph also have an army of saboteurs looking to wreck UK, but this time it’s a 5th column of rail Union members. They also have an odd story where Tory Party want 50% ladies and 50% men MPs in future as answer to sleaze issues.

That last thing, very woke. They'll be statue bothering next.

MoonRabbit said:

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

2 more papers. Express warn Putin has an army of saboteurs sent to UK to humiliate us. Very creepy.

I havn’t a clue what the Stars front page news is saying.

Telegraph also have an army of saboteurs looking to wreck UK, but this time it’s a 5th column of rail Union members. They also have an odd story where Tory Party want 50% ladies and 50% men MPs in future as answer to sleaze issues.

That last thing, very woke. They'll be statue bothering next.

Not knowingly woke or muddled I suspect, just saying stuff because something or other needs to be said.

Even so, it'll drive the PBTories wild. They've been moaning about that sort of thing for years.

Carnyx said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

CarlottaVance said:

The story Angela Rayner branded ‘a desperate, perverted smear’ was actually a story told by Angela Rayner herself, about herself. The language the PM condemned as ‘appalling, sexist, misogynist tripe’ was Angela Rayner’s language. The claim the Speaker condemned as ‘misogynistic and offensive’ was her own.

Two weeks ago, as Tory whips desperately attempted to corral their MPs into blocking an inquiry by the Privileges Committee into whether the PM lied to the Commons over Partygate, Rayner tweeted: ‘You want the truth? They can’t handle the truth.’

But after the events of the past seven days, a separate question must now be posed. Can she?

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/176486

So the Mail’s story, which claimed that Tory MPs had come forward to accuse Rayner of “Basic Instinct” was wrong.

The whole thing is a bullshit dead cat, contrived to take heat off Boris. It was kind of working, until Neil Paris started masturbating to tractor porn.

The funniest thing about the Mail's misogyny is that it has led to a Tory MP resigning over his porno habits, leading to a byelection.

Karma...

And we all now know that tractor porn is a thing. Which I didn't. Though I have a book on old tractors.

Imagine being a MP remembered for duck houses, or moats, or tractor porn ...

Most are not remembered at all, so at least he will, which is something.

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

2 more papers. Express warn Putin has an army of saboteurs sent to UK to humiliate us. Very creepy.

I havn’t a clue what the Stars front page news is saying.

Telegraph also have an army of saboteurs looking to wreck UK, but this time it’s a 5th column of rail Union members. They also have an odd story where Tory Party want 50% ladies and 50% men MPs in future as answer to sleaze issues.

That last thing, very woke. They'll be statue bothering next.

Not knowingly woke or muddled I suspect, just saying stuff because something or other needs to be said.

Even so, it'll drive the PBTories wild. They've been moaning about that sort of thing for years.

Are you sure, such an innocuous and progressive headline could wind anyone up?

Foxy said:

More serious than #Growlergate

Johnson: Press conference 25-3-2020. ““Patrick, on the numbers of people who have the disease asymptomatically, there was a study I saw quoted from some Oxford academics saying that as many as 50% may have had it asymptomatically”

He knew. He lied.
https://t.co/KZ7RZnikSa

The public inquiry - when it finally happens - will be box office.

Let's hope they pick someone of impeccable qualifications to chair it.

Benpointer said:

MoonRabbit said:

Benpointer said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

One front page is ready, the Indy, headline story is number 10 just can’t stop briefing against number 11.

Is Boris planning replacing Sunak with Truss quite soon? Can Boris get away with a reshuffle doing this now? Is Sunak so hollowed out already as to be no threat to big dog? Could Boris then try Patel as foreign Secretary?

Heavens above, Truss is bad, Patel would see us all vaporised in about five minutes.

A tad over the top Doctor! Boris may well use Sunak as scapegoat and shuffle his cabinet heavyweights if under pressure in coming months, it’s not to unbelievable to imagine that happening.

Another enormous score for King Harry Brook setting Yorkshire up for another win. Now I know it’s on a YouTube Chanel I watch some of it and his batting was amazing.

Is it just me or are there many more big individual scores being made this season than in previous years?

Very dry spring weather?

1000 runs before the end of May looks doable for the first time since 1988; Shan Masood is already on 713 and May has not even started yet.

Masood average 118, King Harry averaging 170.

geoffw said:

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Azerbaijan’s president Aliyev says Ukraine should never ever agree on occupation, rely on its resources and fight back to protect what it has

He says Azerbaijan has good relations with Russia but Baku has always supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity, “we aren’t hiding”
https://mobile.twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1520388882445045761

Weren't Russia supporting the other side in the recent war with Armenia?

Yes.

The Azeris were aided by the Turks. Armenia by Russia

Turkey is also helping Ukraine

Turkey v Russia is a subplot of this war

A old one, as in the song about Abdul and Ivan.

Yet another classic by Percy French.

Prince over the water news...


https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1520488371050668033

Gerhard Schröder still has state funding for his private office.

https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1520515140310949895

Carnyx said:

Got to be on merit, we've heard for months. No set quotas. And now ...

It's an interesting approach for the Tories to take all of a sudden. Though it would be more logical to make it 100%, given the number of Tory sex scandals due to come out still (I make it about 30 more at a rough mental arithmetical count, and that's being a little generous to them).

So are they actually going for all-women's shortlists, or is it just a vague aspiration?

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

2 more papers. Express warn Putin has an army of saboteurs sent to UK to humiliate us. Very creepy.

I havn’t a clue what the Stars front page news is saying.

Telegraph also have an army of saboteurs looking to wreck UK, but this time it’s a 5th column of rail Union members. They also have an odd story where Tory Party want 50% ladies and 50% men MPs in future as answer to sleaze issues.

That last thing, very woke. They'll be statue bothering next.

Not knowingly woke or muddled I suspect, just saying stuff because something or other needs to be said.

Even so, it'll drive the PBTories wild. They've been moaning about that sort of thing for years.

Are you sure, such an innocuous and progressive headline could wind anyone up?

Got to be on merit, we've heard for months. No set quotas. And now ...

It's an interesting approach for the Tories to take all of a sudden. Though it would be more logical to make it 100%, given the number of Tory sex scandals due to come out still (I make it about 30 more at a rough mental arithmetical count, and that's being a little generous to them).

Presumably it’s just all the blokes are being forced to resign and losing their seats?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

🥀 The secret Labour/Lib Dem elections pact has been revealed.

Read my letter and the questions that Sir Keir Starmer must answer 👇

https://twitter.com/OliverDowden/status/1520515882199486465

ROFL they are desperate. What about the Tory/BXP pact at GE19?

I suspect Oliver Dowden has now realised he will be the scapegoat for the poor Conservative performance and the seat losses on Thursday and he will be publicly sacked by the Prime Minister.

If it’s an evil pact between two parties denying voters proper democracy, Why doesn’t Ed Davey get a letter too? Why only Starmer? 😡

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Labour 1997 anniversary.

Things can only get better. Not long to wait now.

Things did get better.


And now...

williamglenn said:

Gerhard Schröder still has state funding for his private office.

https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1520515140310949895

I imagine this is a courtesy extended to all former Kanzlers, and separate from the fact that he should be horsewhipped, tarred and feathered.