If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the Major premiership and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Not really. He could have hung on in Leominster as a Conservative until he fell off the perch, were he that cynical. Wasn't he replaced by the drear-fest that is Bill Wiggin?
I suspect you are right about Corbyn as leader, although he had a stronger constitution than me and stayed whereas I left on the advent of Magic Grandpa.
Temple-Morris also sounded superb. Like Patrick McNee (John Steed of the Avengers).
The differences between centrist Labour supporters and centrist One Nation Conservatives such as myself have never been that great. There is certainly a much bigger difference between Ken Clarke and Rees-Mogg than there is between the former and, say, Yvette Cooper
(Cue HYUFD claiming that his idol, the disgraced former PM and pathological liar, Boris Johnson was/is a One Nation Conservative - he isn't and never was.)
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
There will be worse people who have been elevated to the Lords. But it does feel like a misstep from Starmer, as there are bound to be other faithful servants of parliament and the Labour party who did not abuse parliamentary privilege in that way who could have been elevated instead.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Ah, I see, so someone who demonstrably was of another party was only pretending due to his geography, whereas there are people who have consistently voted for and even campaigned for the party for decades who are not 'true' Tories if they oppose specific policies that are actually quite new, or not fans of this or that leader?
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
There will be worse people who have been elevated to the Lords. But it does feel like a misstep from Starmer, as there are bound to be other faithful servants of parliament and the Labour party who did not abuse parliamentary privilege in that way who could have been elevated instead.
For me it’s Watson’s lack of contrition, as if he still thinks he was right, just that Beech was the wrong witness or something. That the whole thing is just a tissue of lies that did terrible damage to peoples lives doesn’t seem to matter to him. After all, they were mainly Tory scum that suffered, right?
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
Medlars are fantastic ornamentals for blossom fruit and autumn colour, as a food: if you play your cards *exactly* right you end up with something like a rotten pear, but not so nice. Discard.
Much too much sugar in that recipe by the look of it, this is how people spoil sloe gin. And sloes are tart.
My mate's slow gin is amazing (and not over-sweet). But I don't have the recipe. So that's an anecdote that goes nowhere.
Leon's banned. Oh well. Stunningly ironic way to go.
If he did write a rhyme for trigger by mistake I think the system auto bans you.
I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt seeing as N and B are adjacent on the keyboard, but I fear the extra g was an attempt to circumvent the banned words list.
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
Medlars are fantastic ornamentals for blossom fruit and autumn colour, as a food: if you play your cards *exactly* right you end up with something like a rotten pear, but not so nice. Discard.
Much too much sugar in that recipe by the look of it, this is how people spoil sloe gin. And sloes are tart.
My mate's slow gin is amazing (and not over-sweet). But I don't have the recipe. So that's a anecdote that goes nowhere.
Gin, sugar and sloes plus about 10 years for the best stuff. Also keep it dark or the colour fades.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
An alternative theory doing the rounds is that Mr Pelosi and his assailant were known to each other and this was “a domestic”.
Of course this could very easily be mendacious rubbish based on no more than “It’s San Francisco, San Francisco has lots of gay bars, older gentleman, younger man….” you can fill in the innuendo yourself.
In some ways that would be “better” (or less bad) news (except for the Pelosis) than if it was politically motivated. But I was struck by William Glenn’s observation when the story first came out that there was something “off” about the story. Truth is the daughter of time.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the Major premiership and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Not really. He could have hung on in Leominster as a Conservative until he fell off the perch, were he that cynical. Wasn't he replaced by the drear-fest that is Bill Wiggin?
I suspect you are right about Corbyn as leader, although he had a stronger constitution than me and stayed whereas I left on the advent of Magic Grandpa.
Temple-Morris also sounded superb. Like Patrick McNee (John Steed of the Avengers).
I remember being very impressed by Temple-Morris when he came to the OU Irish Society to talk about the peace process in 1995.
I never voted for him, although I was too young to vote by a year I campaigned for the Roger Pincham Liberals in the "just 579 votes" (or whatever the number was?). campaign. We got tonked!
His wife was Iranian, I believe, and he spoke very eloquently about the Islamic State in Tehran too. All's well that ends well, Leominster had a Labour MP, albeit briefly.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
There will be worse people who have been elevated to the Lords. But it does feel like a misstep from Starmer, as there are bound to be other faithful servants of parliament and the Labour party who did not abuse parliamentary privilege in that way who could have been elevated instead.
For me it’s Watson’s lack of contrition, as if he still thinks he was right, just that Beech was the wrong witness or something. That the whole thing is just a tissue of lies that did terrible damage to peoples lives doesn’t seem to matter to him. After all, they were mainly Tory scum that suffered, right?
He's in good company, the police don't seem to have learned a damn thing from the whole affair either, and their resistance to learning anything about it cries out from the pages of the Henriques Report.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
Medlars are fantastic ornamentals for blossom fruit and autumn colour, as a food: if you play your cards *exactly* right you end up with something like a rotten pear, but not so nice. Discard.
Much too much sugar in that recipe by the look of it, this is how people spoil sloe gin. And sloes are tart.
My mate's slow gin is amazing (and not over-sweet). But I don't have the recipe. So that's a anecdote that goes nowhere.
The standar recipe I was brought up with is one third sloes, one third sugar in the bottle and then top up with gin . If you prefer it less sweet (as I do) then reduce the sugar content by about one third. Same recipe works very well for damsons and if you swap gin for vodka you can do blackberry or raspberry vodka using same principle
It's not an elaborate joke Leon. As the n-bomb you dropped in your above post shows.
I find it hard to believe that even neo nazis openly have Nazi stuff on their desktop backgrounds while out in public. It's the same reason most even most racists know not to say they are racists.
In Leon's Inception level blurring of reality and fantasy he implicitly invites us to determine what is and is not real for ourselves. I have accepted that invitation. If he doesn't like the outcome, tough.
Why bother? I'm sure you are getting more frustration than the troll.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
An alternative theory doing the rounds is that Mr Pelosi and his assailant were known to each other and this was “a domestic”.
Of course this could very easily be mendacious rubbish based on no more than “It’s San Francisco, San Francisco has lots of gay bars, older gentleman, younger man….” you can fill in the innuendo yourself.
In some ways that would be “better” (or less bad) news (except for the Pelosis) than if it was politically motivated. But I was struck by William Glenn’s observation when the story first came out that there was something “off” about the story. Truth is the daughter of time.
William G was using innuendo in place of the smear outright.
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
Don’t the party they have transferred to need to check their credentials? As an extreme example, if JRM thought he would switch to Labour to save his NE Somerset seat, would Labour want to select him?
In the case of Shawn Woodward, they moved him to a new seat.
Good point!
Did Labour complain about a normal middle class bloke who had married into serious money holding high office?
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
Medlars are fantastic ornamentals for blossom fruit and autumn colour, as a food: if you play your cards *exactly* right you end up with something like a rotten pear, but not so nice. Discard.
Much too much sugar in that recipe by the look of it, this is how people spoil sloe gin. And sloes are tart.
My mate's slow gin is amazing (and not over-sweet). But I don't have the recipe. So that's a anecdote that goes nowhere.
The standar recipe I was brought up with is one third sloes, one third sugar in the bottle and then top up with gin . If you prefer it less sweet (as I do) then reduce the sugar content by about one third. Same recipe works very well for damsons and if you swap gin for vodka you can do blackberry or raspberry vodka using same principle
I just asked. His ratio is roughly 30% sloe, 20% sugar, 50% gin.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
But aren’t you, essentially, ying to Malcolm’s yang?
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
I haven't got a huge amount. Thought I should try something before stripping the tree. I have lots of homemade sloe gin as well so going for something different. I have started now on a Medlar cheese.
My experiments with food have mixed results, mainly because I fail to follow recipes. The sloe gin is great, the elderflower champagne was dishwater, but converted nicely into an elderflower sorbet.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
But aren’t you, essentially, ying to Malcolm’s yang?
He seems to be the PB regular you love to hate.
Because he is essentially stupid, and I regard anyone who adores Salmond as deplorable as someone who adores Nick Griffin.
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
Glad you enjoy the pix!
Have PM’d you
Thanks for the PM @Leon. I have replied. Appreciated.
John Bercow started in the Monday Club and was last seen calling fellow members of his local Labour Party, “comrade”.
I myself have moved leftward with years, though I maintain it’s because the times have changed, rather than my values.
Or perhaps I’ve been mugged by reality.
Most Labour supporters I have met I would never accuse of having an abundance of reality. It is normally unworldly naivety that shines through with a belief that everything can be solved by more public spending, as long as it is of other (less worthy) peoples' money
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
You, in your own small way, are part of the problem. And no, it’s not ‘impossible to know’. It just requires waiting for the police. investigation, and in the meantime not peddling far fetched conspiracy theories which are at variance with what are the known facts.
To satisfy the curiosity of those who are wondering what @Leon has been dribbling over the last couple of threads, here’s an account.
1. By week’s end, a sizable percentage of the GOP base will believe an absurd conspiracy theory positing that Paul Pelosi was assaulted by his leftist gay lover.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
Go away cockroach, the irony in your pathetic childish post is incredible. Some day you will grow beyond the vegetable stage.
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
Medlars are fantastic ornamentals for blossom fruit and autumn colour, as a food: if you play your cards *exactly* right you end up with something like a rotten pear, but not so nice. Discard.
Much too much sugar in that recipe by the look of it, this is how people spoil sloe gin. And sloes are tart.
My mate's slow gin is amazing (and not over-sweet). But I don't have the recipe. So that's an anecdote that goes nowhere.
I made a nice gin (if I do say so myself) by flavouring it with some rose petals and a little sugar. Just a hint of turkish delight about it. I should probably do that again sometime.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
But aren’t you, essentially, ying to Malcolm’s yang?
He seems to be the PB regular you love to hate.
Because he is essentially stupid, and I regard anyone who adores Salmond as deplorable as someone who adores Nick Griffin.
John Bercow started in the Monday Club and was last seen calling fellow members of his local Labour Party, “comrade”.
I myself have moved leftward with years, though I maintain it’s because the times have changed, rather than my values.
Or perhaps I’ve been mugged by reality.
Most Labour supporters I have met I would never accuse of having an abundance of reality. It is normally unworldly naivety that shines through with a belief that everything can be solved by more public spending, as long as it is of other (less worthy) peoples' money
I’ve not yet voted for Labour. Am currently looking forward to doing so (albeit in a safe Labour seat).
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
But aren’t you, essentially, ying to Malcolm’s yang?
He seems to be the PB regular you love to hate.
Because he is essentially stupid, and I regard anyone who adores Salmond as deplorable as someone who adores Nick Griffin.
Panties in a bunch luv, your inferiority complex is huge, I am sorry I threaten you so much.
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
But aren’t you, essentially, ying to Malcolm’s yang?
He seems to be the PB regular you love to hate.
Because he is essentially stupid, and I regard anyone who adores Salmond as deplorable as someone who adores Nick Griffin.
John Bercow started in the Monday Club and was last seen calling fellow members of his local Labour Party, “comrade”.
I myself have moved leftward with years, though I maintain it’s because the times have changed, rather than my values.
Or perhaps I’ve been mugged by reality.
Most Labour supporters I have met I would never accuse of having an abundance of reality. It is normally unworldly naivety that shines through with a belief that everything can be solved by more public spending, as long as it is of other (less worthy) peoples' money
I’ve not yet voted for Labour. Am currently looking forward to doing so (albeit in a safe Labour seat).
Are you not living in the states? Do you vote as an ex pat, and if so in which location?
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
There are, I think, two stories where that is somewhat true:
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
From what I have read around the story, the man concerned is a drug addict and a sometime nudist, living a very ramshackle and somewhat sad and disjointed life. This seems like a sad story of crime and drug addiction in San Francisco to me, and the attempt to make it into a MAGA assassination attempt seems premature if not positively specious. You don't have to believe the theory that he was the man's gay lover to see that.
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
Would you like us to tell him how you really feel?
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
But aren’t you, essentially, ying to Malcolm’s yang?
He seems to be the PB regular you love to hate.
Because he is essentially stupid, and I regard anyone who adores Salmond as deplorable as someone who adores Nick Griffin.
John Bercow started in the Monday Club and was last seen calling fellow members of his local Labour Party, “comrade”.
I myself have moved leftward with years, though I maintain it’s because the times have changed, rather than my values.
Or perhaps I’ve been mugged by reality.
Most Labour supporters I have met I would never accuse of having an abundance of reality. It is normally unworldly naivety that shines through with a belief that everything can be solved by more public spending, as long as it is of other (less worthy) peoples' money
I’ve not yet voted for Labour. Am currently looking forward to doing so (albeit in a safe Labour seat).
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
TBF to Liz Truss she joined the Tories at their nadir in 1997. Okay, they were admittedly bigger than the LDs she left, but for a true careerist there was only one way to go in ‘97.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
But aren’t you, essentially, ying to Malcolm’s yang?
He seems to be the PB regular you love to hate.
Because he is essentially stupid, and I regard anyone who adores Salmond as deplorable as someone who adores Nick Griffin.
John Bercow started in the Monday Club and was last seen calling fellow members of his local Labour Party, “comrade”.
I myself have moved leftward with years, though I maintain it’s because the times have changed, rather than my values.
Or perhaps I’ve been mugged by reality.
Most Labour supporters I have met I would never accuse of having an abundance of reality. It is normally unworldly naivety that shines through with a belief that everything can be solved by more public spending, as long as it is of other (less worthy) peoples' money
I’ve not yet voted for Labour. Am currently looking forward to doing so (albeit in a safe Labour seat).
Are you not living in the states? Do you vote as an ex pat, and if so in which location?
I presume it works similarly to how I maintain my vote in NZ; ie in my last address.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
There are, I think, two stories where that is somewhat true:
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
The problem is, the existence of the Hunter Biden story, the fact it was suppressed during the election campaign and the very stong suspicion that the motive for censoring it was that beating Trump was too important - this all just stokes the right wing conspiracy nuts.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
There are, I think, two stories where that is somewhat true:
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
From what I have read around the story, the man concerned is a drug addict and a sometime nudist, living a very ramshackle and somewhat sad and disjointed life. This seems like a sad story of crime and drug addiction in San Francisco to me, and the attempt to make it into a MAGA assassination attempt seems premature if not positively specious. You don't have to believe the theory that he was the man's gay lover to see that.
...who just happens to write a blog containing a load of references to MAGA and QAnon.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the Major premiership and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Not really. He could have hung on in Leominster as a Conservative until he fell off the perch, were he that cynical. Wasn't he replaced by the drear-fest that is Bill Wiggin?
I suspect you are right about Corbyn as leader, although he had a stronger constitution than me and stayed whereas I left on the advent of Magic Grandpa.
Temple-Morris also sounded superb. Like Patrick McNee (John Steed of the Avengers).
Temple Morris got promoted from the Commons to the Lords, with PM Blair making him a peer of the realm and Lord Temple Morris as reward for his defection to the New Labour government
People can simply change their minds, quite sincerely, or they may be pure opportunists, and sometimes a combination of the two.
I'd say Alan Howarth was an example of the former, John Bercow an example of the latter. Howarth was always decent, and refused to engage in personal attacks on his former colleagues. Bercow revelled in such attacks. And his own character is entirely repulsive.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
TBF to Liz Truss she joined the Tories at their nadir in 1997. Okay, they were admittedly bigger than the LDs she left, but for a true careerist there was only one way to go in ‘97.
The cleverest opportunists will buy at the bottom of the market.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
TBF to Liz Truss she joined the Tories at their nadir in 1997. Okay, they were admittedly bigger than the LDs she left, but for a true careerist there was only one way to go in ‘97.
The cleverest opportunists will buy at the bottom of the market.
Truss is playing the long game as I’ve said repeatedly on here. I have a tidy sum on her for next PM
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
TBF to Liz Truss she joined the Tories at their nadir in 1997. Okay, they were admittedly bigger than the LDs she left, but for a true careerist there was only one way to go in ‘97.
I can imagine Truss being sincere in concluding that her version of liberal freedom was best found in the Conservatives, but 1997 was also a goodish time for a careerist to get in on the ground floor.
Less competition, buy when everyone else is selling, that sort of thing.
Hopefully, some bright young non-bonkers things on the centre-right are making that calculation as we speak.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
Starmer is a totally untalented no user.
Only someone with a brain as small as yours and a political outlook that makes you a bum licking follower of someone as repulsive as Salmond could make such an absurd statement. Why do you bother coming on here? You offer absolutely zero insight other than small- minded prejudice.
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
But aren’t you, essentially, ying to Malcolm’s yang?
He seems to be the PB regular you love to hate.
Because he is essentially stupid, and I regard anyone who adores Salmond as deplorable as someone who adores Nick Griffin.
John Bercow started in the Monday Club and was last seen calling fellow members of his local Labour Party, “comrade”.
I myself have moved leftward with years, though I maintain it’s because the times have changed, rather than my values.
Or perhaps I’ve been mugged by reality.
Most Labour supporters I have met I would never accuse of having an abundance of reality. It is normally unworldly naivety that shines through with a belief that everything can be solved by more public spending, as long as it is of other (less worthy) peoples' money
I’ve not yet voted for Labour. Am currently looking forward to doing so (albeit in a safe Labour seat).
Are you not living in the states? Do you vote as an ex pat, and if so in which location?
I presume it works similarly to how I maintain my vote in NZ; ie in my last address.
But I confess I haven’t looked into it.
The state of the civil service in the U.K. you might be advised to start now. Dad took 8 months to regain his driving licence after an eye test in December (mid surgery). Absolutely shocking.
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
Run away jessie boy
Having had racist hate speech on here already this afternoon can we please not supplement it with homophobia?
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
There are, I think, two stories where that is somewhat true:
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
From what I have read around the story, the man concerned is a drug addict and a sometime nudist, living a very ramshackle and somewhat sad and disjointed life. This seems like a sad story of crime and drug addiction in San Francisco to me, and the attempt to make it into a MAGA assassination attempt seems premature if not positively specious. You don't have to believe the theory that he was the man's gay lover to see that.
...who just happens to write a blog containing a load of references to MAGA and QAnon.
Who also happens to attend nude protests and have an extremely chequered relationship history, lives in a squat/bus/homeless commune, and is addicted to psychadellic drugs. Not the archetypal Trumpian, just seems drug-addled and mental.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
There are, I think, two stories where that is somewhat true:
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
From what I have read around the story, the man concerned is a drug addict and a sometime nudist, living a very ramshackle and somewhat sad and disjointed life. This seems like a sad story of crime and drug addiction in San Francisco to me, and the attempt to make it into a MAGA assassination attempt seems premature if not positively specious. You don't have to believe the theory that he was the man's gay lover to see that.
...who just happens to write a blog containing a load of references to MAGA and QAnon.
Who also happens to attend nude protests and have an extremely chequered relationship history, lives in a squat/bus/homeless commune, and is addicted to psychadellic drugs. Not the archetypal Trumpian, just seems drug-addled and mental.
Psychedelic, and there are no psychedelic drugs which are addictive.
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
Run away jessie boy
Having had racist hate speech on here already this afternoon can we please not supplement it with homophobia?
nothing homophobic about you halfwitted troll, F off busybody.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
TBF to Liz Truss she joined the Tories at their nadir in 1997. Okay, they were admittedly bigger than the LDs she left, but for a true careerist there was only one way to go in ‘97.
The cleverest opportunists will buy at the bottom of the market.
Like Liz Truss you mean? Defected from LDs to Tories in the mid 1990s, ended up PM, even if a blink and you miss it one!
(However she was at least always a classical liberal and small state even if not a traditional Tory, she was never in Labour)
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
TBF to Liz Truss she joined the Tories at their nadir in 1997. Okay, they were admittedly bigger than the LDs she left, but for a true careerist there was only one way to go in ‘97.
Blair was first elected on Foot's "longest suicide note in history" 1983. Just sayin'.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
There are, I think, two stories where that is somewhat true:
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
From what I have read around the story, the man concerned is a drug addict and a sometime nudist, living a very ramshackle and somewhat sad and disjointed life. This seems like a sad story of crime and drug addiction in San Francisco to me, and the attempt to make it into a MAGA assassination attempt seems premature if not positively specious. You don't have to believe the theory that he was the man's gay lover to see that.
...who just happens to write a blog containing a load of references to MAGA and QAnon.
Who also happens to attend nude protests and have an extremely chequered relationship history, lives in a squat/bus/homeless commune, and is addicted to psychadellic drugs. Not the archetypal Trumpian, just seems drug-addled and mental.
Psychedelic, and there are no psychedelic drugs which are addictive.
Fine, I will freely admit to using wrong/misspelled terminology, but you get the idea.
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
Run away jessie boy
Having had racist hate speech on here already this afternoon can we please not supplement it with homophobia?
nothing homophobic about you halfwitted troll, F off busybody.
Good afternoon Malcolm. I see you are in fine form....
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
Run away jessie boy
Having had racist hate speech on here already this afternoon can we please not supplement it with homophobia?
nothing homophobic about you halfwitted troll, F off busybody.
No. It’s homophobic speech and there should be no place for it on here
And also note that the "newspaper" Musk quoted, in his amplification of the Pelosi conspiracy theory to his several million followers, is best known for reporting that Hillary Clinton is dead and has been replaced by a body double.
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
Run away jessie boy
Having had racist hate speech on here already this afternoon can we please not supplement it with homophobia?
nothing homophobic about you halfwitted troll, F off busybody.
Calling someone homosexual as an insult isn't homophobic?
And also note that the "newspaper" Musk quoted, in his amplification of the Pelosi conspiracy theory to his several million followers, is best known for reporting that Hillary Clinton is dead and has been replaced by a body double.
“Impossible to know the truth”…
The truth seems to be buried under a huge mound of poop these days.
Desmond Donnelly - MP for Pembroke 1950 - 1970 - had an interesting political journey. In 1945 he stood for the Common Wealth party - a small party to the Left of Labour. A few years later he joined Labour and gained Pembroke for the party in 1950 against the national tide by narrowly defeating Gwilym Lloyd George. In his early years at Westminster he was a Bevanite - on the party's left, but by the mid-1950s had become a firm Gaitskellite.Had Hugh Gaitskell lived to become PM , Donnelly could have expected Ministerial office, but he had a poor relationship with Wilson. In the 1964- 1966 Parliament he - with Woodrow Wyatt - opposed plans to renationalise the Steel industry. When the post-Devaluation spending cuts announced in January 1968 included Britain's withrawal from the Far East in the early 1970s, he resigned the Labour Whip. Two months later he was expelled from the party and proceeded to set up his own party - the United Democrats - and received public support from some rightwing Tories including Julian Amery. Fighting under his new banner , he polled nearly 12,000 votes but came third in 1970 and probably split Labour's vote sufficiently to hand his seat to the Tories. In the early 1970s he joined the Tories but failed to get selected for a seat. Finally he committed suicide at Heathrow airport in April 1974. What should we make of such a person? He was exceptionally well regarded as a Constituency MP as reflected in the size of his 1970 vote.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
There are, I think, two stories where that is somewhat true:
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
From what I have read around the story, the man concerned is a drug addict and a sometime nudist, living a very ramshackle and somewhat sad and disjointed life. This seems like a sad story of crime and drug addiction in San Francisco to me, and the attempt to make it into a MAGA assassination attempt seems premature if not positively specious. You don't have to believe the theory that he was the man's gay lover to see that.
...who just happens to write a blog containing a load of references to MAGA and QAnon.
Who also happens to attend nude protests and have an extremely chequered relationship history, lives in a squat/bus/homeless commune, and is addicted to psychadellic drugs. Not the archetypal Trumpian, just seems drug-addled and mental.
Psychedelic, and there are no psychedelic drugs which are addictive.
AFAIK, he’s still arguing about the shooting down of MH17, so you’re wasting your time.
And also note that the "newspaper" Musk quoted, in his amplification of the Pelosi conspiracy theory to his several million followers, is best known for reporting that Hillary Clinton is dead and has been replaced by a body double.
“Impossible to know the truth”…
How do they know - has she started being all nice to people?
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
I look forward to Lee's return journey in that case.
Lee Anderson won't be returning, he's gone full on right-wing with the zeal of a convert.
Just read his wiki.
Afternoon all.
"Lee Anderson always ideologically a Conservative" doesn't quite ring true, given his background in pretty much the poorest area of a down-at-heel mining village. I can't say what turned him, if anything - but I might punt at his being 17-18 at college in 1984 when Scargill sent his hundreds of flying pickets into Nottinghamshire after a democratic vote was denied being part responsible for turning him to the more moderate wing of Labour - say the EETPU/ASTMS tradition from the late 80s/90s.
(EETPU were one of the Unions who concluded no-strike agreements iirc.)
I tend not to listen to wiki entries for hate figures for the soft left such as Anderson - they tend to be lists of selected -ve points with a lot of stuff left out. There's plenty missing from that one. Might take a look at that to see if I can fix some details, however in that kind of piece Wiki normally migrates back to partisan content.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
TBF to Liz Truss she joined the Tories at their nadir in 1997. Okay, they were admittedly bigger than the LDs she left, but for a true careerist there was only one way to go in ‘97.
Blair was first elected on Foot's "longest suicide note in history" 1983. Just sayin'.
Cameron was also first elected in 2001 in Blair's landslide year, as was Boris.
In some respects better to get elected in opposition when your party is at its lowest and the only way is up if you want to be a future PM and long term PM.
Michael Howard by contrast was elected in the Thatcher landslide of 1983 and Hague in 1989 when the Tories were only just over halfway through their period in office and both ended up defeated Leaders of the Opposition when the pendulum swung the other way. Same with Ed Miliband, elected in 2005 when Blair was re elected. Starmer was elected in 2015 when Cameron won his majority by contrast
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
No views on that; but there is overwhelmingly gigantic common ground between Labour and Tory, making the exaggerated difference absurd.
Mainstream moderates in both parties support: NHS, free education 5-18, NATO, nuclear, state pensions, welfare for the poorer and needier, policing, justice systems, devolution, not currently being in EU, state managed expenditure at roughly current levels, regulated private enterprise, big corporate capitalism, private but regulated banks and financial sector, London as world class financial centre, a better than average HE/university system, government obedience to court orders, fairly progressive taxation, monarchy, a liberal social order, freedom of belief, multi- party democracy.
The differences in truth are almost all about style, rhetoric, tinkering at the edges, small scale retail offers, and tiny amounts of state expenditure up and down the axis.
The search which is really on is for a government who can deliver the agreed package competently. it is almost nothing to do with policies.
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
Run away jessie boy
Having had racist hate speech on here already this afternoon can we please not supplement it with homophobia?
nothing homophobic about you halfwitted troll, F off busybody.
Good afternoon Malcolm. I see you are in fine form....
Afternoon Bev, the halfwits on here drive me crazy, lightweight wokes , rabid Tories , ne'er do wells and comic singers abound. Need the sensible ones to post more often and drown them out.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
It remarkably naive of you to think there isn't a significant overlap between Conservative and Labour. The extremes of both don't resemble each other much, but the Tory left and Labour right overlap and are interchangeable
The Tory left has more in common with the LDs than the Labour right and vice versa.
Perhaps, but that that doesn't make what I said false. There is considerable overlap with most parties. The idea that switching between Conservative and Labour means you were always in the wrong party is obviously nonsense, especially in times when the parties themselves are in flux. If both parties stumble rightwards, a Tory-Lab defection is natural. If they lurch left, a reverse defection feels normal.
It doesn't suit everyone to acknowledge that some people can fit naturally into multiple parties in almost any pairing you care to mention, but it's true.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
I look forward to Lee's return journey in that case.
Lee Anderson won't be returning, he's gone full on right-wing with the zeal of a convert.
Just read his wiki.
Afternoon all.
"Lee Anderson always ideologically a Conservative" doesn't quite ring true, given his background in pretty much the poorest area of a down-at-heel mining village. I can't say what turned him, if anything - but I might punt at his being 17-18 at college in 1984 when Scargill sent his hundreds of flying pickets into Nottinghamshire after a democratic vote was denied being part responsible for turning him to the more moderate wing of Labour - say the EETPU tradition from the late 80s/90s.
I tend not to listen to wiki entries for hate figures for the soft left such as Anderson - they tend to be lists of selected -ve points with a lot of stuff left out. There's plenty missing from that one. Might take a look at that to see if I can fix some details, however in that kind of piece Wiki normally migrates back to partisan content.
Have a nice afternoon/evening everyone. Please let Malcolm know I will not be able to read his usual infantile abuse, which is a great loss to me, because I particularly enjoy reading them knowing how much his fat little ugly face is glowing gammon pink with anger at me insulting his beloved Scottish fuhrer; the man aka a sex pest by his own QC and his successor.
Run away jessie boy
Having had racist hate speech on here already this afternoon can we please not supplement it with homophobia?
nothing homophobic about you halfwitted troll, F off busybody.
Calling someone homosexual as an insult isn't homophobic?
Only in your sick mind it is that you sad git. It is not that in the real world, take your prejudices and stick them where the sun don't shine. Get your paranoia seen to.
Most Labour supporters I have met I would never accuse of having an abundance of reality. It is normally unworldly naivety that shines through with a belief that everything can be solved by more public spending, as long as it is of other (less worthy) peoples' money
Cheers pal. On Monday, go to the chemists, get some ear wax and try listening harder.
And also note that the "newspaper" Musk quoted, in his amplification of the Pelosi conspiracy theory to his several million followers, is best known for reporting that Hillary Clinton is dead and has been replaced by a body double.
“Impossible to know the truth”…
If California is one of the states which releases 911 calls, we will soon enough know the truth of the rumour that the assilant was known to the victim.
That article does read as if entirely speculation, though.
Why do they keep letting him back? We've seen slurs against Black people, Asians, Catholics, and more. It happens with alarming regularity.
He adds colour to the site, despite his crazy bouts he is and always was one of the best posters on the site. Mediocrity is to be avoided.
They can do what they like ofc, but if there's a policy that this and that isn't allowed, then it's no policy at all when they keep enabling it. Doesn't really make sense to me.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Indeed. Those who go on a political ‘journey’ just so happen to always move to more popular positions/parties
TBF to Liz Truss she joined the Tories at their nadir in 1997. Okay, they were admittedly bigger than the LDs she left, but for a true careerist there was only one way to go in ‘97.
Blair was first elected on Foot's "longest suicide note in history" 1983. Just sayin'.
Cameron was also first elected in 2001 in Blair's landslide year, as was Boris.
In some respects better to get elected in opposition when your party is at its lowest and the only way is up if you want to be a future PM and long term PM.
Michael Howard by contrast was elected in the Thatcher landslide of 1983 and Hague in 1989 when the Tories were only just over halfway through their period in office and both ended up defeated Leaders of the Opposition when the pendulum swung the other way. Same with Ed Miliband, elected in 2005 when Blair was re elected. Starmer was elected in 2015 when Cameron won his majority by contrast
Cameron and Johnson weren't exactly.elected against the run of play. Weren't they Witney and Henley respectively? Donkeys and blue rosettes, and all that....
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
The rumour is that a gay hookup between 80-something Mr Pelosi and his attacker went wrong after too much coke.
That lacks… plausibility?
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” - Sartre
Why do they keep letting him back? We've seen slurs against Black people, Asians, Catholics, and more. It happens with alarming regularity.
He adds colour to the site, despite his crazy bouts he is and always was one of the best posters on the site. Mediocrity is to be avoided.
They can do what they like ofc, but if there's a policy that this and that isn't allowed, then it's no policy at all when they keep enabling it. Doesn't really make sense to me.
Surely no way back after dropping the Hard R. Unless Dark Elon buys the site.
Why do they keep letting him back? We've seen slurs against Black people, Asians, Catholics, and more. It happens with alarming regularity.
He adds colour to the site, despite his crazy bouts he is and always was one of the best posters on the site. Mediocrity is to be avoided.
They can do what they like ofc, but if there's a policy that this and that isn't allowed, then it's no policy at all when they keep enabling it. Doesn't really make sense to me.
Sean paid for the drinks at a previous PB get together, outed Tims identity, and has attacked most centre left Posters from time to time.
Its Mike and Roberts site they can ban who they want and refuse to ban who they want.
Why do they keep letting him back? We've seen slurs against Black people, Asians, Catholics, and more. It happens with alarming regularity.
He adds colour to the site, despite his crazy bouts he is and always was one of the best posters on the site. Mediocrity is to be avoided.
They can do what they like ofc, but if there's a policy that this and that isn't allowed, then it's no policy at all when they keep enabling it. Doesn't really make sense to me.
Surely no way back after dropping the Hard R. Unless Dark Elon buys the site.
This difference was already there for the first round.
It would be interesting to know volumes as well as odds. Bookies set odds to maximise profits, not to reflect reality. If the monied betting population is not representative, nor will the odds be.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
I look forward to Lee's return journey in that case.
Lee Anderson won't be returning, he's gone full on right-wing with the zeal of a convert.
Just read his wiki.
Afternoon all.
"Lee Anderson always ideologically a Conservative" doesn't quite ring true, given his background in pretty much the poorest area of a down-at-heel mining village. I can't say what turned him, if anything - but I might punt at his being 17-18 at college in 1984 when Scargill sent his hundreds of flying pickets into Nottinghamshire after a democratic vote was denied being part responsible for turning him to the more moderate wing of Labour - say the EETPU tradition from the late 80s/90s.
I tend not to listen to wiki entries for hate figures for the soft left such as Anderson - they tend to be lists of selected -ve points with a lot of stuff left out. There's plenty missing from that one. Might take a look at that to see if I can fix some details, however in that kind of piece Wiki normally migrates back to partisan content.
Such data isn’t exhaustive, but it’s verifiable fact.
I'd question whether Parliamentary votes are a strong indicator of personal views (and these are low numbers of votes) due to party lines and whipping, and auto-voting against motions from the opposite party from both sides. Though some of those are quite interesting (and one or two not what I would expect tbh):
>Consistently voted for raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices >Voted a mixture of for and against a reduction in spending on welfare benefits >Consistently voted against reducing the rate of corporation tax >Almost always voted against transferring more powers to the Senedd/Welsh Parliamen >Consistently voted against a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK >Generally voted against strengthening the Military Covenant >Generally voted against more EU integration >Consistently voted against higher taxes on bank >Almost always voted for stronger enforcement of immigration rules >Consistently voted for a stricter asylum system >Consistently voted against raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax
The Military Covenant one was a surpirse to me - its a biggish military area.
Comments
(Cue HYUFD claiming that his idol, the disgraced former PM and pathological liar, Boris Johnson was/is a One Nation Conservative - he isn't and never was.)
I think the implausibility lies in someone of *his* online presence just happening to hook-up with the husband of one of his political hate figures.
But madder things have happened.
Of course this could very easily be mendacious rubbish based on no more than “It’s San Francisco, San Francisco has lots of gay bars, older gentleman, younger man….” you can fill in the innuendo yourself.
In some ways that would be “better” (or less bad) news (except for the Pelosis) than if it was politically motivated. But I was struck by William Glenn’s observation when the story first came out that there was something “off” about the story. Truth is the daughter of time.
His wife was Iranian, I believe, and he spoke very eloquently about the Islamic State in Tehran too. All's well that ends well, Leominster had a Labour MP, albeit briefly.
His troll tactics are quite different from yours.
Did Labour complain about a normal middle class bloke who had married into serious money holding high office?
I await your childish and predictably abusive response
He seems to be the PB regular you love to hate.
My experiments with food have mixed results, mainly because I fail to follow recipes. The sloe gin is great, the elderflower champagne was dishwater, but converted nicely into an elderflower sorbet.
Cheers for the suggestion Andy.
I myself have moved leftward with years, though I maintain it’s because the times have changed, rather than my values.
Or perhaps I’ve been mugged by reality.
And no, it’s not ‘impossible to know’. It just requires waiting for the police. investigation, and in the meantime not peddling far fetched conspiracy theories which are at variance with what are the known facts.
To satisfy the curiosity of those who are wondering what @Leon has been dribbling over the last couple of threads, here’s an account.
1. By week’s end, a sizable percentage of the GOP base will believe an absurd conspiracy theory positing that Paul Pelosi was assaulted by his leftist gay lover.
Allow me to explain….
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1586740957000728577
Quite a lot of people who throw Molotov cocktails end up lighting themselves up too.
Am currently looking forward to doing so (albeit in a safe Labour seat).
Most come into the 'bleeding obvious' category, but one that is not so obvious is visiting the Cod War patrol boat.
But I confess I haven’t looked into it.
I'd say Alan Howarth was an example of the former, John Bercow an example of the latter. Howarth was always decent, and refused to engage in personal attacks on his former colleagues. Bercow revelled in such attacks. And his own character is entirely repulsive.
Less competition, buy when everyone else is selling, that sort of thing.
Hopefully, some bright young non-bonkers things on the centre-right are making that calculation as we speak.
(However she was at least always a classical liberal and small state even if not a traditional Tory, she was never in Labour)
https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/jessie
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jessie boy
I think I will go and do some Java coding and pop in later.
“Impossible to know the truth”…
What should we make of such a person? He was exceptionally well regarded as a Constituency MP as reflected in the size of his 1970 vote.
"Lee Anderson always ideologically a Conservative" doesn't quite ring true, given his background in pretty much the poorest area of a down-at-heel mining village. I can't say what turned him, if anything - but I might punt at his being 17-18 at college in 1984 when Scargill sent his hundreds of flying pickets into Nottinghamshire after a democratic vote was denied being part responsible for turning him to the more moderate wing of Labour - say the EETPU/ASTMS tradition from the late 80s/90s.
(EETPU were one of the Unions who concluded no-strike agreements iirc.)
I tend not to listen to wiki entries for hate figures for the soft left such as Anderson - they tend to be lists of selected -ve points with a lot of stuff left out. There's plenty missing from that one. Might take a look at that to see if I can fix some details, however in that kind of piece Wiki normally migrates back to partisan content.
In some respects better to get elected in opposition when your party is at its lowest and the only way is up if you want to be a future PM and long term PM.
Michael Howard by contrast was elected in the Thatcher landslide of 1983 and Hague in 1989 when the Tories were only just over halfway through their period in office and both ended up defeated Leaders of the Opposition when the pendulum swung the other way. Same with Ed Miliband, elected in 2005 when Blair was re elected. Starmer was elected in 2015 when Cameron won his majority by contrast
Mainstream moderates in both parties support: NHS, free education 5-18, NATO, nuclear, state pensions, welfare for the poorer and needier, policing, justice systems, devolution, not currently being in EU, state managed expenditure at roughly current levels, regulated private enterprise, big corporate capitalism, private but regulated banks and financial sector, London as world class financial centre, a better than average HE/university system, government obedience to court orders, fairly progressive taxation, monarchy, a liberal social order, freedom of belief, multi- party democracy.
The differences in truth are almost all about style, rhetoric, tinkering at the edges, small scale retail offers, and tiny amounts of state expenditure up and down the axis.
The search which is really on is for a government who can deliver the agreed package competently. it is almost nothing to do with policies.
It doesn't suit everyone to acknowledge that some people can fit naturally into multiple parties in almost any pairing you care to mention, but it's true.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25894/lee_anderson/ashfield/votes
Such data isn’t exhaustive, but it’s verifiable fact.
Get your paranoia seen to.
That article does read as if entirely speculation, though.
Blunkett moment?
"The home secretary, David Blunkett, was tempted to "open a bottle" when he heard of Harold Shipman's death"
https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1586767493619748866?t=1aqjF6zKyrGhJkS_b71Ngg&s=09
This difference was already there for the first round.
https://twitter.com/MrTimDunn/status/1586750132623654914
Its Mike and Roberts site they can ban who they want and refuse to ban who they want.
Thems the rules
Other sites are available
Bookies set odds to maximise profits, not to reflect reality. If the monied betting population is not representative, nor will the odds be.
>Consistently voted for raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices
>Voted a mixture of for and against a reduction in spending on welfare benefits
>Consistently voted against reducing the rate of corporation tax
>Almost always voted against transferring more powers to the Senedd/Welsh Parliamen
>Consistently voted against a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK
>Generally voted against strengthening the Military Covenant
>Generally voted against more EU integration
>Consistently voted against higher taxes on bank
>Almost always voted for stronger enforcement of immigration rules
>Consistently voted for a stricter asylum system
>Consistently voted against raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax
The Military Covenant one was a surpirse to me - its a biggish military area.