The LDs claim to be just 2% behind in Tiverton & Honiton – politicalbetting.com

turbotubbs said:

Scott_xP said:

Stuartinromford said:

reversal is just going to have to wait for the Johnson-Gove-Farage-Hannan geneation of politicians to shuffle off. That won't happen quickly

I think it might be very rapid.

When BoZo goes his entire band of sycophants will never get another Government gig

The Red wall is gone. The Blue wall is gone.

Everybody will want to move on from the King...

No evidence that the blue wall has gone. We have polling in mid term and by elections. Starmer has yet to generate a compelling ‘vote for me’ message, other than ‘I’m not Johnson’. If the blue wall is to go, he needs to make southern right of centre voters think he is on their side. He’s not done that yet. Has he campaigned in T &H yet?

The Home Counties blue wall will never go Labour, if it goes it will go LD.

It is reclaiming the red wall Labour needs to focus on apart from Tory marginals in London

kle4 said:

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

TimS said:

Dinner this evening with my fellow metropolitan remainer clients and colleagues, and spent about an hour defending the Lib Dems against jibes about…tuition fees.

Yes that’s right. One policy enacted a decade ago which, despite all the somewhat murkier water that has passed under the British political bridge since, despite Boris, and Brexit, and Rwanda, and Corbyn wanting to send Novichok samples to Russia for testing, seems to remain the Pavlovian reflex whenever I mention I’m a Lib Dem.

Tuition fees.

I remember it up clearly on every bill board seemingly in the land. No to Tuition Fees.

They didn’t have to so meekly cave on that one at the first sight of shiny ministerial car. Did they?

No ones hands are clean on this. Tuition fees were brought in by New Labour, and massively increased by Cable at the insistence of the Tories.

Ironically the Tories seem to have dodged the blame

Perhaps it undercut their rock solid support among those aged 18-22.

Indeed…

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

1 Tobias Ellwood, most of the remaining pro EEA, rejoin the EU Tory MPs were deselected by Boris in 2019.

If we do rejoin the EEA it will only happen under a Labour led government

Maybe but politics isn't just a short game but a long game as well.

After all, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who took us into the EEC in 1973 and a Conservative Opposition leader who was one of the strongest advocates for us staying in the EEC in 1975.

Yes, a lot has happened since then but fifty years is a blink of an eye in some measures. I follow the adage "never say never" and I could imagine a future Conservative Prime Minister taking us back into Europe if he or she considered it in the national interest so to do.

Not now, not in 10 years but in 20-30 years, who knows?

As a Party loyalist you would of course support the Conservative Prime Minister who took us back into Europe wouldn't you?

Yes, I think it quite possible that at some point the Cons will flip back to the pro-EU position that they held for the half century to 2016.

If I had to guess, in the event that the UK drifts back to an EEA-alike situation, the "pay, obey, not much say" aspect is going to chafe much more for Conservatives than others. But that's a question for the late 2030's.

If the current UK direction does turn out to be a dead end, reversal is just going to have to wait for the Johnson-Gove-Farage-Hannan geneation of politicians to shuffle off. That won't happen quickly, but it will happen, and then anything can happen. Future UK and Future Europe are run by and made of different people to Current UK and Current Europe.

(And the "what about the cost?" aspect is going to be pretty easy to answer. First, the extra admin looks like it swallows up the savings from non-membership. Second, if the UK economy does grow worse than others, we won't be liable to pay much in anyway. Thanks Brexit Backers. Thackers.)

This sums up why those who think we will end up back in the EU are going to be sorely disappointed. Repeating the 'pay. no say' myths about EEA membership will get you nowhere, not only because they are simply wrong but also because when anyone looks at rejoining the EU they will see real 'pay, no say' in action. The moves towards removing the last vetoes and making all votes QMV will simply reinforce this new reality.

Benpointer said:

StillWaters said:

AugustusCarp2 said:

TimS said:

Dinner this evening with my fellow metropolitan remainer clients and colleagues, and spent about an hour defending the Lib Dems against jibes about…tuition fees.

Yes that’s right. One policy enacted a decade ago which, despite all the somewhat murkier water that has passed under the British political bridge since, despite Boris, and Brexit, and Rwanda, and Corbyn wanting to send Novichok samples to Russia for testing, or McDonnell bringing the little red book to the Commons, seems to remain the Pavlovian reflex whenever I mention I’m a Lib Dem.

Tuition fees.

If it's any consolation, I once canvassed an old boy in the 1980s who wouldn't vote for the Liberals because, and I quote, "They were responsible for the First World War"!

I knew someone who refused to buy the Observer because they were “disloyal during the Suez Crisis”

'Disloyal' but, er... right.

No Ben, it was right we stood up to US interference in our Middle East - a line was drawn in the sand and the US crossed it, hence Suez was the right response.

Team Truss are lobbying for a rule change to allow a second no-confidence vote to be held within six months rather than a year, reveals @Kevin_Maguire in this week's Commons Confidential. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/commons-confidential/2022/06/liz-truss-hopes-second-no-confidence-vote

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

It was the Tories cozying up to the Chinese Communist Party...

So make the point another way. Mao was evil. It demeans to bring his works into the chamber.

Calm down turby. What Foxy omitted is Osborne had the last and biggest laugh. As he finished speaking McD tossed the little red book onto Osbornes dispatch box. Ozzy leapt up, made out he looked inside front cover and said “oh look! It’s his own personal signed copy”. Que uproar. Sides literally split on the Tory benches.

Literally. Grrrr.

Consider yourself firmly told off, young lady.

Wait. What? Why? This actually happened. Me and my mum watched it.

Scott_xP said:

Stuartinromford said:

reversal is just going to have to wait for the Johnson-Gove-Farage-Hannan geneation of politicians to shuffle off. That won't happen quickly

I think it might be very rapid.

When BoZo goes his entire band of sycophants will never get another Government gig

The Red wall is gone. The Blue wall is gone.

Everybody will want to move on from the King...

Supporting the EU is like a football team for you isn’t it? I’ve never understood people who have blind devotion to a political party but I understand an emotional connection to the EU even less.

We ain’t going back in for the reason expressed above. They won’t have us unless or until there’s complete political consensus here, which there won’t ever be. And I suspect that applies to EFTA/EEA now as well.

MoonRabbit said:

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

It was the Tories cozying up to the Chinese Communist Party...

So make the point another way. Mao was evil. It demeans to bring his works into the chamber.

Calm down turby. What Foxy omitted is Osborne had the last and biggest laugh. As he finished speaking McD tossed the little red book onto Osbornes dispatch box. Ozzy leapt up, made out he looked inside front cover and said “oh look! It’s his own personal signed copy”. Que uproar. Sides literally split on the Tory benches.

Literally. Grrrr.

Consider yourself firmly told off, young lady.

Wait. What? Why? This actually happened. Me and my mum watched it.

I think he's a purist in this losing battle.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/figuratively-literally/

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

Wow. Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull tells @BBCNewsnight that @BorisJohnson "is not worthy of the office" of Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1537188940431638528

Is that really a 'wow'? I mean, I agree with him, but he's a crossbencher and former top bureaucrat from, what, 15 years ago? Even if we rarely get such comments from former officials, many others have said similar.

Thinking about it. Lord Turnbull would be perfect for the vacant role of Ethics Advisor.
Nominative determinism.

biggles said:

We ain’t going back in for the reason expressed above. They won’t have us unless or until there’s complete political consensus here, which there won’t ever be. And I suspect that applies to EFTA/EEA now as well.

The economic pressure to join is what happened in the 70s.

It will happen again.

Smart Tories will welcome it.

Both of them.

MoonRabbit said:

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

It was the Tories cozying up to the Chinese Communist Party...

So make the point another way. Mao was evil. It demeans to bring his works into the chamber.

Calm down turby. What Foxy omitted is Osborne had the last and biggest laugh. As he finished speaking McD tossed the little red book onto Osbornes dispatch box. Ozzy leapt up, made out he looked inside front cover and said “oh look! It’s his own personal signed copy”. Que uproar. Sides literally split on the Tory benches.

Literally. Grrrr.

Consider yourself firmly told off, young lady.

Wait. What? Why? This actually happened. Me and my mum watched it.

Must have been a bit of a scene in the Commons when those sides literally split. All those messy intestines all over the floor.

MaxPB said:

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Do we still think the MPC will come out with 0.25% tomorrow?

At least, quite likely 0.5%.

0.5% would crash the economy. the impact on mortgage owners would be immense

BoE has been quietly rowing back on its language on interest rates

That isn't in the BoE's remit and it's why Bailey has no credibility with the markets. They keep worrying about the economy and not the fucking rate of inflation which is destroying the economy. Fuck the landlords and housing speculators that will get burned by rate rises.

I disagree. BoE should hold their fire. Too much uncertainty. Monetarists are noting that broader money supplies have gone seriously down recently iirc.

Scott_xP said:

Lord Turnbull: “This matter is not going to be solved by ministerial advisers. It’s going to be solved when enough of his backbenchers can summon up the courage to say that he’s not a man of sufficient integrity that they don’t want him as their leader.” #Newsnight
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1537189041074237440

'aint that the truth and like waiting for Godot, we may be some time...

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

It was the Tories cozying up to the Chinese Communist Party...

So make the point another way. Mao was evil. It demeans to bring his works into the chamber.

Calm down turby. What Foxy omitted is Osborne had the last and biggest laugh. As he finished speaking McD tossed the little red book onto Osbornes dispatch box. Ozzy leapt up, made out he looked inside front cover and said “oh look! It’s his own personal signed copy”. Que uproar. Sides literally split on the Tory benches.

Literally. Grrrr.

Consider yourself firmly told off, young lady.

Wait. What? Why? This actually happened. Me and my mum watched it.

Must have been a bit of a scene in the Commons when those sides literally split. All those messy intestines all over the floor.

Not a spine to be seen strangely.

Richard_Tyndall said:

MoonRabbit said:

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

It was the Tories cozying up to the Chinese Communist Party...

So make the point another way. Mao was evil. It demeans to bring his works into the chamber.

Calm down turby. What Foxy omitted is Osborne had the last and biggest laugh. As he finished speaking McD tossed the little red book onto Osbornes dispatch box. Ozzy leapt up, made out he looked inside front cover and said “oh look! It’s his own personal signed copy”. Que uproar. Sides literally split on the Tory benches.

Literally. Grrrr.

Consider yourself firmly told off, young lady.

Wait. What? Why? This actually happened. Me and my mum watched it.

Unless there was Tory offal all over the benches (and I am talking literally not figuratively, no sniggering at the back please) then Stillwaters' reprimand is unfortunately valid.

But it wasn’t far short of that real side splitting laughter.

Is this another bizarre PB in joke “side splitting laughter” 🤷‍♀️

williamglenn said:

If a zero-tariff trade agreement had been on offer back then, we never would have joined.

We created one

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

It was the Tories cozying up to the Chinese Communist Party...

So make the point another way. Mao was evil. It demeans to bring his works into the chamber.

Calm down turby. What Foxy omitted is Osborne had the last and biggest laugh. As he finished speaking McD tossed the little red book onto Osbornes dispatch box. Ozzy leapt up, made out he looked inside front cover and said “oh look! It’s his own personal signed copy”. Que uproar. Sides literally split on the Tory benches.

Literally. Grrrr.

Consider yourself firmly told off, young lady.

Wait. What? Why? This actually happened. Me and my mum watched it.

Must have been a bit of a scene in the Commons when those sides literally split. All those messy intestines all over the floor.

Not a spine to be seen strangely.

One or two. Hard to bend over backwards for the leader without a spine.

MoonRabbit said:

Benpointer said:

StillWaters said:

AugustusCarp2 said:

TimS said:

Dinner this evening with my fellow metropolitan remainer clients and colleagues, and spent about an hour defending the Lib Dems against jibes about…tuition fees.

Yes that’s right. One policy enacted a decade ago which, despite all the somewhat murkier water that has passed under the British political bridge since, despite Boris, and Brexit, and Rwanda, and Corbyn wanting to send Novichok samples to Russia for testing, or McDonnell bringing the little red book to the Commons, seems to remain the Pavlovian reflex whenever I mention I’m a Lib Dem.

Tuition fees.

If it's any consolation, I once canvassed an old boy in the 1980s who wouldn't vote for the Liberals because, and I quote, "They were responsible for the First World War"!

I knew someone who refused to buy the Observer because they were “disloyal during the Suez Crisis”

'Disloyal' but, er... right.

No Ben, it was right we stood up to US interference in our Middle East - a line was drawn in the sand and the US crossed it, hence Suez was the right response.

Suez was a fiasco. The moment that Britain lost its superpower status in the eyes of the world. Within a decade the Empire had gone, the international credibility of British power having been destroyed by Nasser, with a little help from Eisenhower.

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

MikeL said:

Not sure if this has been noticed before:

DeSantis is now favourite on PredictIt for the Republican nomination, ahead of Trump.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7053/Who-will-win-the-2024-Republican-presidential-nomination

Someone tell Trump, he will immediately seek to destroy DeSantis, hopefully undermining them both.

BF is holding the line. Trump still clear fav.

the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice .

The what now?

MrEd said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

Do you feel the same about Stalin being used in a joke by Cable?

Yes

What about Churchill speaking positively of Stalin?

I don't agree with turbotubb's complete embargo on jokes involving murderous tyrants, but whenever people make that particular point I don't think it is as cutting as some evidently think it is. It was a rather different time and critical moment, and even afterwards the geopolitical situation was quite different.

There's lots of things people might have said that once might have made sense, even if not worthy of approval, which doesn't speak to now.

So you would be fine with Hitler’s Mein Kampf being brought into the chamber?

Here’s the thing. People on the right see Mao as evil, hence turbo’s comments. So we put Hitler and Mao in the evil category.

However, people on the left seem to have this view of “his heart was in the right place”.

You've extrapolated rather wildly. I agree that tyrants like Mao and, remarkably, even Stalin somehow get to be seen as more generally acceptable somehow, and that is genuinely strange. You seem to be presuming a political position I don't hold.

I'm just not as viscerally opposed to dark, inappropriate jokes.

I also don't have an issue with an MP bringing up those examples, because if they did they would get pilloried for it. Whilst McDonnell didn't draw shocked gasps he got ridiculed by Osborne for it, the equivalent of a pillorying, and that seems to be the predominant memory most have of the incident.

One big difference is that Stalin and Mao were our allies, at least for a time, but a rather crucial time, so get some credit for that, even though they didn't intentionally become our allies.

I’ll give you Stalin, but Mao was barely an ally.

The Chinese people were though. When we had airmen shot down the Chinese villagers helped them escape, then the Japs murdered the entire village for helping us.

Chinese role as an ally in WW2 should never be gainsaid. There were more Japanese troops tied down in China than the rest of the Pacific put together. Some by the Communists, some by the KMT.
Would have been a different war had they capitulated

AugustusCarp2 said:

As a matter of curiosity, are we allowed to quote, mock, enlist, criticise or praise Napoleon yet? OK, he's French, I know, but is he a Great Liberator or Appalling European Tyrant for Parliamentary and/or PB purposes?

Or Julius Caesar, or Ghenghis Khan? Both were notoriously brutal.

Foxy said:

MaxPB said:

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Do we still think the MPC will come out with 0.25% tomorrow?

At least, quite likely 0.5%.

0.5% would crash the economy. the impact on mortgage owners would be immense

BoE has been quietly rowing back on its language on interest rates

That isn't in the BoE's remit and it's why Bailey has no credibility with the markets. They keep worrying about the economy and not the fucking rate of inflation which is destroying the economy. Fuck the landlords and housing speculators that will get burned by rate rises.

For every borrower there is a saver, who would be glad to get some interest paid at last, and for inflation to be tamed. Mostly the rich elderly homeowners of course, but that is the core Tory vote.

True though that is, there are very few phrases that governments feel they need to avoid appearing in the headlines at any cost. One is "NHS collapse". Another is "negative equity".

LostPassword said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

We ain’t going back in for the reason expressed above. They won’t have us unless or until there’s complete political consensus here, which there won’t ever be. And I suspect that applies to EFTA/EEA now as well.

The economic pressure to join is what happened in the 70s.

It will happen again.

Smart Tories will welcome it.

Both of them.

Right. We joined in the 70s because we decided it was an economic necessity, but we decided to leave in 2016 because we decided there were more important things than the economy.

Why would we want to repeat the experience?

Rejoin only becomes worth the hassle when the country decides it wants to join for more durable reasons than a crisis of economic self-confidence.

Well, "we" in this case being 37% of UK adults. The poat-referendum negotiations, if in any way democratic, should have reflected how wafer-thin majority this was.

MoonRabbit said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MoonRabbit said:

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

It was the Tories cozying up to the Chinese Communist Party...

So make the point another way. Mao was evil. It demeans to bring his works into the chamber.

Calm down turby. What Foxy omitted is Osborne had the last and biggest laugh. As he finished speaking McD tossed the little red book onto Osbornes dispatch box. Ozzy leapt up, made out he looked inside front cover and said “oh look! It’s his own personal signed copy”. Que uproar. Sides literally split on the Tory benches.

Literally. Grrrr.

Consider yourself firmly told off, young lady.

Wait. What? Why? This actually happened. Me and my mum watched it.

Unless there was Tory offal all over the benches (and I am talking literally not figuratively, no sniggering at the back please) then Stillwaters' reprimand is unfortunately valid.

But it wasn’t far short of that real side splitting laughter.

Is this another bizarre PB in joke “side splitting laughter” 🤷‍♀️

No, it is the use of the word literally. It means the thing being described actually happened. So to say "Sides literally split" means there was actual physical rending of flesh with all the consequent blood and gore. Use of the word 'literally' in any other context than a description of an actual physical occurrence is strongly disliked by anyone who likes the complexity and wonder of the English language.

Plus of course, PB pedantics demands that such a crime against the English language not go unpunished

Benpointer said:

AugustusCarp2 said:

As a matter of curiosity, are we allowed to quote, mock, enlist, criticise or praise Napoleon yet? OK, he's French, I know, but is he a Great Liberator or Appalling European Tyrant for Parliamentary and/or PB purposes?

It's too early to say.

Mainly we say he was short.

LostPassword said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

We ain’t going back in for the reason expressed above. They won’t have us unless or until there’s complete political consensus here, which there won’t ever be. And I suspect that applies to EFTA/EEA now as well.

The economic pressure to join is what happened in the 70s.

It will happen again.

Smart Tories will welcome it.

Both of them.

Right. We joined in the 70s because we decided it was an economic necessity, but we decided to leave in 2016 because we decided there were more important things than the economy.

Why would we want to repeat the experience?

Rejoin only becomes worth the hassle when the country decides it wants to join for more durable reasons than a crisis of economic self-confidence.

...or when we remember that the economy is more important than blue passports (that we could have had anyway).

Stuartinromford said:

A by-election candidate writes:

The Tory Party has gone mad. I'm not sure if it can be saved.

For the time being, there's no national alternative on the centre-right but that cannot continue if it carries on down this road.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1537192663207886848

He's not wrong, is he?

I’m the epitome of the centre right who never gets a policy decision wrong, perhaps it’s my moment to step forward.

But I’m going shopping tomorrow, so off to bed now.

Stuartinromford said:

A by-election candidate writes:

The Tory Party has gone mad. I'm not sure if it can be saved.

For the time being, there's no national alternative on the centre-right but that cannot continue if it carries on down this road.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1537192663207886848

He's not wrong, is he?

Maybe, though it'd still take a lot for me to think regionalist parties was the answer outside pretty rare areas.

Foxy said:

AugustusCarp2 said:

As a matter of curiosity, are we allowed to quote, mock, enlist, criticise or praise Napoleon yet? OK, he's French, I know, but is he a Great Liberator or Appalling European Tyrant for Parliamentary and/or PB purposes?

Or Julius Caesar, or Ghenghis Khan? Both were notoriously brutal.

Cameron Murray

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

MikeL said:

Not sure if this has been noticed before:

DeSantis is now favourite on PredictIt for the Republican nomination, ahead of Trump.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7053/Who-will-win-the-2024-Republican-presidential-nomination

Someone tell Trump, he will immediately seek to destroy DeSantis, hopefully undermining them both.

BF is holding the line. Trump still clear fav.

the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice .

The what now?

MrEd said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

As Nick Palmer mentions above

During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”


During a committee appearance on Tuesday, Lord Geidt admitted he is an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence.

Speaking before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Lord Geidt was questioned on whether there was any point to his role as “Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code”, given the Prime Minister still retains the power to block investigations.

Lord Geidt’s role is directly appointed by the Prime Minister, who retains the sole power to judge whether the rules have been broken and impose sanctions.

Labour MP John McDonnell suggested Lord Geidt’s role was “little more than a tin of whitewash.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnsons-ethics-chief-27245365

So the biggest scalp of this parliament is taken by a discredited Corbynista. Maybe Starmer and Labour's front bench should up their game, unless it really is true they want to cement Boris in place, which I doubt.

Sorry, not for me. Bringing Maos little red book into Parliament was a red flag. Mao was a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin and Hitler, and he thought it right to bring his book into the House of Commons? Why does the left have such a blind spot?

Edit messed up quotes somehow...

He brought it in to make the point Cameron and Osborne were too much in bed with the Chinese for this country’s good. That they, ahem, had a blind spot to how deep they were getting us in with the Chinese.

Only time labour have had a positive nod from my mum, when they made that point.

Yes, this is what happened:

"“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.

McDonnell then was forced to pause, amid laughter from the Conservative benches.

After the Speaker restored order, McDonnell said: “Let’s quote from Mao, rarely done in this chamber. The quote is this: ‘We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously, but we must not pretend to know what we do not know.’

“I thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship,” he added."

I am old enough to remember how cosy the Conservative government was with President XI, and Putin as well.

There it is again. You think it appropriate to use Mao even as a joke? It’s abhorrent.

Do you feel the same about Stalin being used in a joke by Cable?

Yes

What about Churchill speaking positively of Stalin?

I don't agree with turbotubb's complete embargo on jokes involving murderous tyrants, but whenever people make that particular point I don't think it is as cutting as some evidently think it is. It was a rather different time and critical moment, and even afterwards the geopolitical situation was quite different.

There's lots of things people might have said that once might have made sense, even if not worthy of approval, which doesn't speak to now.

So you would be fine with Hitler’s Mein Kampf being brought into the chamber?

Here’s the thing. People on the right see Mao as evil, hence turbo’s comments. So we put Hitler and Mao in the evil category.

However, people on the left seem to have this view of “his heart was in the right place”.

You've extrapolated rather wildly. I agree that tyrants like Mao and, remarkably, even Stalin somehow get to be seen as more generally acceptable somehow, and that is genuinely strange. You seem to be presuming a political position I don't hold.

I'm just not as viscerally opposed to dark, inappropriate jokes.

I also don't have an issue with an MP bringing up those examples, because if they did they would get pilloried for it. Whilst McDonnell didn't draw shocked gasps he got ridiculed by Osborne for it, the equivalent of a pillorying, and that seems to be the predominant memory most have of the incident.

One big difference is that Stalin and Mao were our allies, at least for a time, but a rather crucial time, so get some credit for that, even though they didn't intentionally become our allies.

I’ll give you Stalin, but Mao was barely an ally.

The Chinese people were though. When we had airmen shot down the Chinese villagers helped them escape, then the Japs murdered the entire village for helping us.

Chinese role as an ally in WW2 should never be gainsaid. There were more Japanese troops tied down in China than the rest of the Pacific put together. Some by the Communists, some by the KMT.
Would have been a different war had they capitulated

Hence China being the 4th of the great wartime alliance, and getting the permanent seat at the UNSC, albeit initially the KMT.

And indeed. Who threw the KMT under the bus in favour of a veto for Mao?
Why, that notorious romantic lefty Nixon.
We've all got a soft spot for him.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

Wow. Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull tells @BBCNewsnight that @BorisJohnson "is not worthy of the office" of Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1537188940431638528

Is that really a 'wow'? I mean, I agree with him, but he's a crossbencher and former top bureaucrat from, what, 15 years ago? Even if we rarely get such comments from former officials, many others have said similar.

Everything on Twitter seems to need prefacing with 'Wow.'. Everything is always some sort of 'zinger' smart alec comparison that bears no actual scrutiny too. 'Wow. Only this morning Boris claimed to be eating breakfast. Now? Lunch.'

Wow, what a great point!

I saw someone the other day lamenting pretty much any plan being described as a plot, as in 'LDs plot to win seats in the South'.

Stuartinromford said:

A by-election candidate writes:

The Tory Party has gone mad. I'm not sure if it can be saved.

For the time being, there's no national alternative on the centre-right but that cannot continue if it carries on down this road.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1537192663207886848

He's not wrong, is he?

I think he is.

turbotubbs said:

Scott_xP said:

turbotubbs said:

No evidence that the blue wall has gone.

It's yellow

We’ll see. Who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats? Most people have no clue. By elections is kind of their thing.

As a child I thought Gerry Adams was called Sinn Fein (the news would say 'Sinn Fein says X' and show his picture!), maybe parties should consider leaders adopting the name of their party? (Better than the reverse, seen in too many places).

Leon said:

We will all have to change passports AGAIN

Why? What's happened.

"Dominic Raab looks into whether ministers can ignore last-minute injunctions from Strasbourg court amid fury over blocking Rwanda migrant flight"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10921181/Dominic-Raab-looks-ministers-IGNORE-minute-injunctions-Strasbourg-court.html

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

LostPassword said:

Scott_xP said:

biggles said:

We ain’t going back in for the reason expressed above. They won’t have us unless or until there’s complete political consensus here, which there won’t ever be. And I suspect that applies to EFTA/EEA now as well.

The economic pressure to join is what happened in the 70s.

It will happen again.

Smart Tories will welcome it.

Both of them.

Right. We joined in the 70s because we decided it was an economic necessity, but we decided to leave in 2016 because we decided there were more important things than the economy.

Why would we want to repeat the experience?

Rejoin only becomes worth the hassle when the country decides it wants to join for more durable reasons than a crisis of economic self-confidence.

...or when we remember that the economy is more important than blue passports (that we could have had anyway).

As Joni Mitchell sang "you don't know what you've got till it's gone"

The pressure to rejoin, initially the EEA then the EU, will not just be driven by economic factors, important though they are, but a real desire to be part of the wider European political and cultural landscape. It is there already, and despite Brexiteers wishes thriving rather than atrophying.

Hahahahahaha. That you actually believe that is really funny.

One other key thing about Mao is that his political philosophy caught the zeitgeist in many other countries, while both Hitler and Stalin could only impose theirs by force.

This recent work on the legacy of Maoism doesn't skate over his brutality, but does give some insight into how he became a cult in many other countries. Well worth a read.

Maoism: A Global History https://amzn.eu/d/iaO5d4M

Interesting not least because Xi is now moving in a Maoist direction compared to other recent Chinese leaders, with his cult of personality, crackdown on foreign influences, ethnic minorities, and even moves against the rich and cultural influencers.

Mao means cat.
Chinese onomatopoeia never ceases to amaze

Richard_Tyndall said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

rottenborough said:

My advice to Starmer is use their strength as a weakness.

Go nuclear. "I'm a lawyer, I have spent my whole life in the law and the EHRC could be better, so let's bring plans forward to change it". Feck it. Call Raab's bluff and watch the mess.

I assume you have seen this

#ECHR https://twitter.com/BelfastAgmt/status/1536844343922896900/video/1

Very droll.

I was being rather devil's advocate to be honest. But Starmer needs to do something to shake the tree. If he did call for a British Bill of Rights then it would play the wedge card back on tory party which is split between peeps with seats facing LibDem/Remain/Decent and red meat loony tunes types. Getting them to fight over ECHR rewrite would be fun.

And i think i am right in saying that little video made the point that we have been doing this stuff for centuries.

I am no legal expert but if the ECHR disappeared tomorrow most of it would still be UK common law and has been for decades.

Whilst this may be true, do you not think there is an argument for leading by example? For all its flaws, the basic principle of the ECHR is one to be admired and supported and the fact that countries with their own strong traditions of rights are willing to take part surely sends the right sort of message to those countries with poorer records.

Yes. As I say I am being rather mischievous this evening after a couple of drinks and trying to push Starmer to do something, anything to get out of the wedge hole he is in.

Cromwell remains a hero to many. His genocide skated over.
Me? I'm ancient and loyal.

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

We will all have to change passports AGAIN

Why? What's happened.

@leon has lost his in a bar in Georgia?

rottenborough said:

biggles said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

Wow. Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull tells @BBCNewsnight that @BorisJohnson "is not worthy of the office" of Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1537188940431638528

Is that really a 'wow'? I mean, I agree with him, but he's a crossbencher and former top bureaucrat from, what, 15 years ago? Even if we rarely get such comments from former officials, many others have said similar.

Everything on Twitter seems to need prefacing with 'Wow.'. Everything is always some sort of 'zinger' smart alec comparison that bears no actual scrutiny too. 'Wow. Only this morning Boris claimed to be eating breakfast. Now? Lunch.'

Wow, what a great point!

I saw someone the other day lamenting pretty much any plan being described as a plot, as in 'LDs plot to win seats in the South'.

The ones that get me are “row” and “pressure”. You get it a lot on the news.

“Today there’s been a row about X”. Has there? Between who? Anyone other than expected political opponents?

“The Government/Opposition is under pressure over Y”. Is it? From who? You? It’s standard opponents?

"fury" is the number one word for Daily Mail and others.

Yea that grates. I tell you other one that annoys me, while I’m on my high horse. It’s headlines phrased in the form:

Biggles “is an X” says Y.

Instead of:

Y accuses Biggles of being an X.

I think they are very unfair on the subject as, particularly on things like the BBC front page, those just skimming will simply absorb that “Biggles is an X”. Saving words, but at a cost.

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Mao means cat.
Chinese onomatopoeia never ceases to amaze

Mao does rather have the appearance of a cat too, how nominatively appropriate!

Studying and understanding these great villains doesn't require admiration of them. History never repeats exactly but there is rather more than a whiff of Mao to Xi, and Stalin to Putin.

Lloyd-George to Boris….

biggles said:

rottenborough said:

biggles said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

Wow. Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull tells @BBCNewsnight that @BorisJohnson "is not worthy of the office" of Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1537188940431638528

Is that really a 'wow'? I mean, I agree with him, but he's a crossbencher and former top bureaucrat from, what, 15 years ago? Even if we rarely get such comments from former officials, many others have said similar.

Everything on Twitter seems to need prefacing with 'Wow.'. Everything is always some sort of 'zinger' smart alec comparison that bears no actual scrutiny too. 'Wow. Only this morning Boris claimed to be eating breakfast. Now? Lunch.'

Wow, what a great point!

I saw someone the other day lamenting pretty much any plan being described as a plot, as in 'LDs plot to win seats in the South'.

The ones that get me are “row” and “pressure”. You get it a lot on the news.

“Today there’s been a row about X”. Has there? Between who? Anyone other than expected political opponents?

“The Government/Opposition is under pressure over Y”. Is it? From who? You? It’s standard opponents?

"fury" is the number one word for Daily Mail and others.

Yea that grates. I tell you other one that annoys me, while I’m on my high horse. It’s headlines phrased in the form:

Biggles “is an X” says Y.

Instead of:

Y accuses Biggles of being an X.

I think they are very unfair on the subject as, particularly on things like the BBC front page, those just skimming will simply absorb that “Biggles is an X”. Saving words, but at a cost.

Sometimes the headline shows something is a quote but doesn't say who is quoted, which is even worse. You have to click to see who is saying it. Effective tactic, but poor.

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Mao means cat.
Chinese onomatopoeia never ceases to amaze

Mao does rather have the appearance of a cat too, how nominatively appropriate!

Studying and understanding these great villains doesn't require admiration of them. History never repeats exactly but there is rather more than a whiff of Mao to Xi, and Stalin to Putin.

They can even be contemporaneous.

*cough..Trump*

dixiedean said:

Mao means cat.
Chinese onomatopoeia never ceases to amaze

Galloway's role play obviously had other layers of meaning.

Stuartinromford said:

A by-election candidate writes:

The Tory Party has gone mad. I'm not sure if it can be saved.

For the time being, there's no national alternative on the centre-right but that cannot continue if it carries on down this road.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1537192663207886848

He's not wrong, is he?

I went to St James's Park (London) via Parliament Square today, and saw this:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Scott_xP said:

On the UK leaving the ECHR:

Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

Maybe they're talking about a different table.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.

I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.

Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.

Or we could just leave the ECHR and have Parliament change the law subject to democratic consent.

If the ECHR needs to be updated to reflect modern life then we should do that via Parliament, not negotiations.

As I said, although it would be a mistake, that approach would be a far honest policy. That means it is unlikely to be the chosen path of this particular government. Also I don't think it would be part of a manifesto that could get a majority (unless against another Corbyn type of course).

I think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.

Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.

In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)

The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.

If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.

Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.

The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.

I'm not saying that the US system is perfect (it's clearly not). But your idea of protection of rights is ensuring that someone illeberal doesn't get elected. That's not protection, that's hope and pray.

In the US, during the Trump era, the Supreme Court repeatedly stepped in and said "no, that would be unconstitutional".

Most political systems have checks and balances. That's not an accident.

You seem to propose getting rid of all checks and balances.

And, by the way, this is a particular issue in the UK, because FPTP can create very disproportionate results. In 2005, a Labour government got a majority not very different to Boris Johnson's on just 35% of the vote.

Sorry @rcs1000 but I wholeheartedly and completely disagree with you.

For roughly 800+ years of English/British history we have, with a few exceptions, evolved our rights in a positive direction, democratically. Key to that has for most of that time, but especially post-Cromwell been a strong Parliament subject to democratic oversight. Of course the demos evolved over time too, but it has worked. We have checks and balances, they're called MPs and General Elections. The ability to 'kick the bastards out' provides a level of oversight, check and balance that keeps our politics by and large honest and allows us to kick out the buggers that aren't.

The problem with relying upon institutions to provide the checks and balances rather than democracy to do so, is that all institutions throughout the course of human history, if they're not subject to regular democratic oversight, end up self-serving and corrupt. From the Roman Empire, to the Roman Catholic Church, from the Council of Europe to FIFA, from SCOTUS to the United Nations - they're all at one time or another corrupted and rotten and with no democratic oversight. So putting our faith in them, breeds complacency and ultimately circumvents and weakens the checks and balance that democracy entails.

Yes most other nations have institutionalised 'checks and balances', but which of them have our track record of successfully evolving and maintaining liberal democracy? The French have iterated through republic after republic trying many institutions and pretty much invented the modern alternative to common law - to much horror. The American worshipping of the Constitution is behind much of what is wrong there today, and in as much as you say SCOTUS may have 'checked' Trump when he was in power, the fact he stacked SCOTUS means his toxic legacy lives on through them unchecked by the fact he lost the election and the voters kicked him out.

There have been many attempts throughout history to design institutions that can provide checks and balances, none of them have succeeded. Because ultimately, we're all human, and any human institution left unchecked can and ultimately probably will be itself corrupted. That is why democracy works, democracy allows you to remove those who are corrupt. If you water down democracy and put your faith in institutions instead then you are the one hoping and praying that the institution you're putting your faith in isn't corrupted, going against the tide of human history, rather than making sure the voters are ever vigilant and able to do the right thing to get rid of them when the time is due.

Yes, democracy may be flawed, and it isn't perfect. Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried, in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends democracy is all perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government - except for all the others that have been tried from time to time ...