No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
If that is the lesson they learn then we are truly fucked. And if you think that all the lockdowns were unecessary then you are deluded.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support? Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
Or you can do what Sweden did, which was far better. Offer support to those who want it or need it, but leave it then to educated people to make responsible choices.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
AFAIK Sweden's rules were guidance and encouragement rather than police enforcement.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
Would you say that, when people are driving, we should give guidance on what speed to drive at, but then let people choose?
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
If that is the lesson they learn then we are truly fucked. And if you think that all the lockdowns were unecessary then you are deluded.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support? Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
Or you can do what Sweden did, which was far better. Offer support to those who want it or need it, but leave it then to educated people to make responsible choices.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
AFAIK Sweden's rules were guidance and encouragement rather than police enforcement.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
Would you say that, when people are driving, we should give guidance on what speed to drive at, but then let people choose?
No, I'm a liberal not an anarchist.
But I don't view driving 100mph outside a school as the same as sending a child to school.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
Many of you weren't complaining much about the IRA or Hamas blowing up women and children and further back about Stalin and Pol Pot either.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
You are once again so far off the deep end its not funny.
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
They can. However the party association can also vote to deselect their MP as a party candidate even if the leadership still supports them.
So Tory MPs who voted to expel or suspend Boris and/or Mogg could still be deselected as Tory parliamentary candidates by their local Tory associations
Cuckoo.
A lot of associations are.
Neil Hamilton got a vote of confidence from his, even after the brown envelope scandal broke.
[REDACTED] has been reselected by their association despite being on bail for various sexual offences and having agreed not to go onto the Westminster site.
(For now, the same thing would have been to leave the question open until the unpleasantness was cleared up.)
I'm sure the same is true for other parties as well. Local parties are loyal and don't like to admit they selected a baddie.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
Osborne made a linguistic mistake on Twitter that was immediately corrected by Brandon Lewis, who was the frigging Party Chairman at the time.
Everyone else said he was at risk of deselection. He wasn't deselected as Brandon Lewis explained.
Who to believe, the Party Chairman, or you?
Brandon Lewis is not as bright as Osborne and didn't know what he was talking about.
Once an MP loses a vote of no confidence of their local party then that party will obviously not reselect him as their candidate, so effectively the deselection and VONC loss are the same as Osborne correctly said (even if Lewis was trying to say on a technicality they aren't)
Sorry, the Party Chairman was right on this. There are no laws within the Tory Party that made that assembly vote automatic or binding.
The idea you know better than the Party Chairman is utterly amusing.
Dominic Grieve is one MP whose removal of the whip was entirely justified.
Oh indeed, but the removal of the whip happened in the Autumn when he voted against the three line whip called as a confidence motion.
It did not happen due to the silly association vote six months earlier to which HYUFD is referring.
His Association voted to no confidence him, the only way in which that was not a deselection was that it would not be officially confirmed until the Beaconsfield Association selection meeting when it would have selected another general election candidate for Beaconsfield rather than Grieve
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
None of your arguments on this can have any traction for as long as only 60% of homes with planning permission are actually being built. And this is not a case of having land in the pipeline or any of those feeble excuses. The number of unbuilt homes with planning permissions has been going up by between 80 and 100 thousand a year for more than a decade.
Deal with that and then come back and look at planning - 90% of which has nothing to do with 'permission' and is only concerned with the necessery conditions attached to permission.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
Many of you weren't complaining much about the IRA or Hamas blowing up women and children and further back about Stalin and Pol Pot either.
Fuck me, the debit column in my ledger of responsibility is growing at an exponential rate!
Direct question for @HYUFD - does right and wrong matter to you? Your response to the suggestion that Mogg receiving censure for contempt of parliament was "any Tory MP voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party"
Is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no? Is it right that an MP committing contempt of parliament be sanctioned by parliament - yes or no?
Simple questions. This isn't about party politics or partisan hackery or votes or opinion polls. This is about standards of behaviour in a parliament that the British people voted to make sovereign.
So is parliament sovereign or not? Because you appear to be suggesting that its rules and standards should offer fealty to your party members.
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament, most MPs voting for that will be doing so for political reasons and for many because they dislike his attitude to Brexit and his defence of Boris.
Mogg is probably one of the most personally moral MPs in Parliament.
Technically you are also wrong, it is not Parliament alone that is sovereign under our unwritten constitution but Crown in Parliament that is sovereign
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
If your rules are based on the idea that they can be enforced by norms and morality, rather than power, than the immoral, unscrupulous and powerful have no restraints. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre falsely, you cannot libel someone, and if the aim of your speech is the insincere criticism of the necessary functioning parts of the democratic state for self service and aggrandisement, and the functioning of civil society be damned, then year - there should be consequences.
If you believe in the law, if you believe in the power of parliament, if you believe in the institutions of democracy, then they need to be protected from such charlatans because when they aren't those charlatans run rough shod over them. I think it should be considered obscene that a national paper suggested the Supreme Court was the "Enemy of the People" and that should be sanctionable - certainly more sanctionable than if, say, someone shouted it on the street corner. Again, it is one thing for the average Jo to complain about the actions and motives of politicians - it is another for the ex PM to be judged by his peers and found to be lying to parliament (something that used to be considered a resigning offence) and whipping up a public campaign against the committee who judged thusly calling them fraudsters.
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Indeed, without consequences there can be no such thing as freedom of choice - especially if you are the only one who lives consequence free. Johnson has, for far too long, been free from the consequences of his worst excesses and has therefore felt he can commit more of them. Same, in my mind, for the likes of the Daily Mail. People bemoan the dissolving on civility and compromise and talk about polarisation, but what got us here? The constant debasement of the public discourse at the hands of demagogues who have no desire or incentive to tell the truth when they keep being rewarded when all they do is grift.
Nobody is above and beyond criticism.
I believe that the Privileges Committee was entirely right to sanction Johnson in the way that it did. But, I also think that MPs and others have the right to criticise that decision.
No one, other than their constituents, has the right to remove them from public office.
As LJ Sedley put it "freedom of speech, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to say things that others don't want to hear."
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Why are we the only country still stuck on covid recriminations? Does anyone really believe Johnson was the only leader who might not have followed all the rules that applied to everyone else? Could the Elysee withstand the same level of scrutiny?
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
hatred of white working class males' views: absolutely right wing thing. Vide Tolpuddle Martyrs.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
Many of you weren't complaining much about the IRA or Hamas blowing up women and children and further back about Stalin and Pol Pot either.
I was one who thought the Committee might suspend for less than 10 days, due to how hard it can be to prove intent rather than idiocy, so it will be very interesting to read through when I can. I mean, I think he lied deliberately, but that is hard to prove.
But it remains notable and significant I think that Boris's pre report rhetoric goes far beyond claiming process problems and absurd judgement calls by the Committee. That's a standard approach to these types of thing.
No, that his and allies' rhetoric included focus on being expelled (which he wasn't) on the say so of a few MPs, and how dare that happen, it really comes down to a view that there should be no standards regime at all, because the logic follows how dare a Committee punish any MP for actions or words?
It is interesting not many are honest that is the point, which is probably why everything else is emphasised hysterically.
I was one who thought the Committee might suspend for less than 10 days, due to how hard it can be to prove intent rather than idiocy, so it will be very interesting to read through when I can. I mean, I think he lied deliberately, but that is hard to prove.
But it remains notable and significant I think that Boris's pre report rhetoric goes far beyond claiming process problems and absurd judgement calls by the Committee. That's a standard approach to these types of thing.
No, that his and allies' rhetoric included focus on being expelled (which he wasn't) on the say so of a few MPs, and how dare that happen, it really comes down to a view that there should be no standards regime at all, because the logic follows how dare a Committee punish any MP for actions or words?
It is interesting not many are honest that is the point, which is probably why everything else is emphasised hysterically.
It's also interesting that [edit] Mr J's assertion precedes the HoC vote - which would in itself make completely otiose and moot that view (whether it is right or wrong).
Former PM Cameron, former Chancellor Osborne, current Chancellor and former Health Secretary Hunt, all called up to give evidence at the Covid Inquiry next week… with one of the themes the impact of “spending commitments” and “resources” and “levels of funding”
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
HYUFD = Deranged!
I do generally enjoy reading (and occasionally engaging in) HYUFD's debates, but this uncharacteristic rant does come across a bit 'before turning the gun on himself' bonkers.
Direct question for @HYUFD - does right and wrong matter to you? Your response to the suggestion that Mogg receiving censure for contempt of parliament was "any Tory MP voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party"
Is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no? Is it right that an MP committing contempt of parliament be sanctioned by parliament - yes or no?
Simple questions. This isn't about party politics or partisan hackery or votes or opinion polls. This is about standards of behaviour in a parliament that the British people voted to make sovereign.
So is parliament sovereign or not? Because you appear to be suggesting that its rules and standards should offer fealty to your party members.
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament, most MPs voting for that will be doing so for political reasons and for many because they dislike his attitude to Brexit and his defence of Boris.
Mogg is probably one of the most personally moral MPs in Parliament.
Technically you are also wrong, it is not Parliament alone that is sovereign under our unwritten constitution but Crown in Parliament that is sovereign
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
If your rules are based on the idea that they can be enforced by norms and morality, rather than power, than the immoral, unscrupulous and powerful have no restraints. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre falsely, you cannot libel someone, and if the aim of your speech is the insincere criticism of the necessary functioning parts of the democratic state for self service and aggrandisement, and the functioning of civil society be damned, then year - there should be consequences.
If you believe in the law, if you believe in the power of parliament, if you believe in the institutions of democracy, then they need to be protected from such charlatans because when they aren't those charlatans run rough shod over them. I think it should be considered obscene that a national paper suggested the Supreme Court was the "Enemy of the People" and that should be sanctionable - certainly more sanctionable than if, say, someone shouted it on the street corner. Again, it is one thing for the average Jo to complain about the actions and motives of politicians - it is another for the ex PM to be judged by his peers and found to be lying to parliament (something that used to be considered a resigning offence) and whipping up a public campaign against the committee who judged thusly calling them fraudsters.
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Indeed, without consequences there can be no such thing as freedom of choice - especially if you are the only one who lives consequence free. Johnson has, for far too long, been free from the consequences of his worst excesses and has therefore felt he can commit more of them. Same, in my mind, for the likes of the Daily Mail. People bemoan the dissolving on civility and compromise and talk about polarisation, but what got us here? The constant debasement of the public discourse at the hands of demagogues who have no desire or incentive to tell the truth when they keep being rewarded when all they do is grift.
Nobody is above and beyond criticism.
I believe that the Privileges Committee was entirely right to sanction Johnson in the way that it did. But, I also think that MPs and others have the right to criticise that decision.
No one, other than their constituents, has the right to remove them from public office.
As LJ Sedley put it "freedom of speech, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to say things that others don't want to hear."
There need to be standards of speech, like libel or hate speech or incitement, that accept that speech is an action and actions can cause harm. If you believe in a democratic state, that state needs methods of defending itself. Many people here argue “hang em and flog em” for climate protesters who at worst are an inconvenience, but defend the right of those who can leverage their platforms to purposefully erode trust in democratic society to their own ends. It is clear these kinds of people, the Trumps, the Johnsons, the Tuckers or the Farages, do not care about anything but their own power and influence, and are willing for everything to burn down for it. Why should we have to accept the destruction of institutions in favour of the rich and powerful? Why should we protect them when they just want to use us all up, suck the life juice out of us, and discard us? It isn’t a slippery slope to say “those who already have power and privilege have an obligation to use that in a way that doesn’t lead to the erosion of civil society”. I’m not saying lock them up, necessarily, but fuck them. If I went up to an MP to boo or shout at them, with the new anti protest laws, am I protected? No. Because the same people who cry free speech whilst they are setting everything on fire are crying about how mean it is and saying it should be illegal to call them arsonists.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
None of your arguments on this can have any traction for as long as only 60% of homes with planning permission are actually being built. And this is not a case of having land in the pipeline or any of those feeble excuses. The number of unbuilt homes with planning permissions has been going up by between 80 and 100 thousand a year for more than a decade.
Deal with that and then come back and look at planning - 90% of which has nothing to do with 'permission' and is only concerned with the necessery conditions attached to permission.
I disagree Richard - planning is at the heart of why we have this backlog of unbuilt homes with planning permission, because it’s the planning regime that shapes the incentives under which the house builders seek to maximise profits.
You can’t fix the housing shortage without fixing planning, somehow.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Er, you won't find me criticising the traditional family when I've been married to the same woman for over twenty years and have three children! I have two William and Kate mugs, a Harry and Meghan mug, a QE2 and KC3 mug so I obviously don't hate the royal family. I don't hate the history of the West but I know enough about it to know that it's not just rainbows and ponies - I lived three years in a country where most of the population are descended from slaves - try walking in other people's shoes sometime, you might find it useful. I love singing Christmas carols and love Larry David so I guess you can't accuse me of hating Christian and Jewish culture either. And my favourite comedian is Peter Kay which suggests I don't hate white working class men. But I am still left wing and I won't criticise people who have been oppressed throughout history and are fighting back against it. So if you want to have a pop at me for that, feel free.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
An example of the issues relating to planning is the way that big developers often have a *local* monopoly.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
Many of you weren't complaining much about the IRA or Hamas blowing up women and children and further back about Stalin and Pol Pot either.
You think it's ok to blow up adult men then
There's a hierarchy of blow up dolls in the modern Tory party.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Er, you won't find me criticising the traditional family when I've been married to the same woman for over twenty years and have three children! I have two William and Kate mugs, a Harry and Meghan mug, a QE2 and KC3 mug so I obviously don't hate the royal family. I don't hate the history of the West but I know enough about it to know that it's not just rainbows and ponies - I lived three years in a country where most of the population are descended from slaves - try walking in other people's shoes sometime, you might find it useful. I love singing Christmas carols and love Larry David so I guess you can't accuse me of hating Christian and Jewish culture either. And my favourite comedian is Peter Kay which suggests I don't hate white working class men. But I am still left wing and I won't criticise people who have been oppressed throughout history and are fighting back against it. So if you want to have a pop at me for that, feel free.
I hate the royal family and I'm a liberal not a leftist. Takes all sorts, I guess.
I’m a right winger and I hate the royals and the working classes.
Rory: I am struggling to find anyone from history as immoral [as Johnson]
Er.. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc etc might have something today about that?
Yes, as per my correction above. The field was really British politicians
Lloyd George was a bit of an old rascal. Some would say Blair telling lies to justify his illegal wasn't very moral either...
Neither Lloyd George nor Blair reached Johnson's level of disregard for the truth.
Johnson is a sociopath imo, very similar to but perhaps not (allowed to be) as extreme as Trump.
(Regarding Trump's mental view of the world, I cannot recommend Mary Trump's biog 'Too much and never enough' too highly - it's very good.)
Even if we accept Blair was lying rather than wrong, we can see why he was lying, and the same with almost all politicians but with Boris, there often seems no reason to it, no payoff. Much of it could be classed as bullshit rather than lies because to lie means acknowledging some form of objective truth.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Well this is a shock. I thought I was pretty much on the left but clearly not; I've failed the HYUFD test simply by being married to the same woman for 43 years.
Who will play Boris in the next biopic? Surely there must be one in the works, or several. The Hatton Garden robbery gave us half a dozen films and series. We can't wait for The Crown.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
None of your arguments on this can have any traction for as long as only 60% of homes with planning permission are actually being built. And this is not a case of having land in the pipeline or any of those feeble excuses. The number of unbuilt homes with planning permissions has been going up by between 80 and 100 thousand a year for more than a decade.
Deal with that and then come back and look at planning - 90% of which has nothing to do with 'permission' and is only concerned with the necessery conditions attached to permission.
You are obsessed with this figure as if it actually means anything or addresses any of the concerns raised. It does not. Quite the opposite, your figure demonstrates that my concerns are valid.
Why do you think that figure is remotely relevant?
There are two reasons why houses might have permission but not be built which are both fuelled by the planning system being the problem.
One is that as I said land with permission is worth magnitudes more than land without. So people with zero intention of actually building a house can seek to get permission in the hope of artificially inflating the value of their land in order to then flog it to someone else with a permission premium in the price. If they fail to flog it, then land will never be developed, as they were operating in bad faith all along and only doing so due to the permission system inflating the value of land with permission so much.
The second is that land with permission can be controlled by a local monopoly or oligopoly of developers. This was a key concern I raised and you dismiss because you look at a percentage figure and think it matters. That oligopoly can choose to go slow or develop land at their preferred pace because they know they're safe from competition because the planning system acts as a barrier of entry against competitors.
Your percentage figure is not relevant to the debate in the way you think it is. That people are abusing the planning system to inflate the value of their land banks is precisely a flaw of the planning system that would be resolved with planning reform.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Don’t forget hatred of the flag, hatred of cisgendered women, hatred of industry, hatred of free enterprise, hatred of the rich, hatred of children, hatred of… *yawn* Other tired canards are available.
How about hatred a reaction somewhere between indifference and irritation towards tedious bores with an outdated and sepia-tinted perspective on how the world ought to be and a sense of perpetual outrage against the cultural, economic and social norms of contemporary life?
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
You are once again so far off the deep end its not funny.
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
They can. However the party association can also vote to deselect their MP as a party candidate even if the leadership still supports them.
So Tory MPs who voted to expel or suspend Boris and/or Mogg could still be deselected as Tory parliamentary candidates by their local Tory associations
Cuckoo.
A lot of associations are.
Neil Hamilton got a vote of confidence from his, even after the brown envelope scandal broke.
[REDACTED] has been reselected by their association despite being on bail for various sexual offences and having agreed not to go onto the Westminster site.
(For now, the same thing would have been to leave the question open until the unpleasantness was cleared up.)
I'm sure the same is true for other parties as well. Local parties are loyal and don't like to admit they selected a baddie.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
Osborne made a linguistic mistake on Twitter that was immediately corrected by Brandon Lewis, who was the frigging Party Chairman at the time.
Everyone else said he was at risk of deselection. He wasn't deselected as Brandon Lewis explained.
Who to believe, the Party Chairman, or you?
It's a standard HYUFD argument. When caught out by a fact check, he frequently argues that he was "effectively" still correct. Nonsense, of course - but it renders such protracted arguments tedious, and a waste of your time.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Well this is a shock. I thought I was pretty much on the left but clearly not; I've failed the HYUFD test simply by being married to the same woman for 43 years.
HYUFD, presumably you think King Solomon and various other OT figures hate the traditional family, given he had hundreds of wives and concubines.
Imagine saying that your beer was perceived as ‘too fratty’, ‘out of touch’ and ‘needing to be more inclusive’, then hiring a very controversial cross-dressing ‘influencer’, with an audience of mostly underage teens, to promote the brand.
Rory: I am struggling to find anyone from history as immoral [as Johnson]
Er.. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc etc might have something today about that?
Yes, as per my correction above. The field was really British politicians
Lloyd George was a bit of an old rascal. Some would say Blair telling lies to justify his illegal wasn't very moral either...
Neither Lloyd George nor Blair reached Johnson's level of disregard for the truth.
Johnson is a sociopath imo, very similar to but perhaps not (allowed to be) as extreme as Trump.
(Regarding Trump's mental view of the world, I cannot recommend Mary Trump's biog 'Too much and never enough' too highly - it's very good.)
Even if we accept Blair was lying rather than wrong, we can see why he was lying, and the same with almost all politicians but with Boris, there often seems no reason to it, no payoff. Much of it could be classed as bullshit rather than lies because to lie means acknowledging some form of objective truth.
Boris instinctively wants to be liked. He doesnt want to moderate his behaviour in order to obtain such approval, so in the face of adversity or scrutiny, he lies.
Direct question for @HYUFD - does right and wrong matter to you? Your response to the suggestion that Mogg receiving censure for contempt of parliament was "any Tory MP voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party"
Is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no? Is it right that an MP committing contempt of parliament be sanctioned by parliament - yes or no?
Simple questions. This isn't about party politics or partisan hackery or votes or opinion polls. This is about standards of behaviour in a parliament that the British people voted to make sovereign.
So is parliament sovereign or not? Because you appear to be suggesting that its rules and standards should offer fealty to your party members.
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament, most MPs voting for that will be doing so for political reasons and for many because they dislike his attitude to Brexit and his defence of Boris.
Mogg is probably one of the most personally moral MPs in Parliament.
Technically you are also wrong, it is not Parliament alone that is sovereign under our unwritten constitution but Crown in Parliament that is sovereign
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
If your rules are based on the idea that they can be enforced by norms and morality, rather than power, than the immoral, unscrupulous and powerful have no restraints. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre falsely, you cannot libel someone, and if the aim of your speech is the insincere criticism of the necessary functioning parts of the democratic state for self service and aggrandisement, and the functioning of civil society be damned, then year - there should be consequences.
If you believe in the law, if you believe in the power of parliament, if you believe in the institutions of democracy, then they need to be protected from such charlatans because when they aren't those charlatans run rough shod over them. I think it should be considered obscene that a national paper suggested the Supreme Court was the "Enemy of the People" and that should be sanctionable - certainly more sanctionable than if, say, someone shouted it on the street corner. Again, it is one thing for the average Jo to complain about the actions and motives of politicians - it is another for the ex PM to be judged by his peers and found to be lying to parliament (something that used to be considered a resigning offence) and whipping up a public campaign against the committee who judged thusly calling them fraudsters.
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Indeed, without consequences there can be no such thing as freedom of choice - especially if you are the only one who lives consequence free. Johnson has, for far too long, been free from the consequences of his worst excesses and has therefore felt he can commit more of them. Same, in my mind, for the likes of the Daily Mail. People bemoan the dissolving on civility and compromise and talk about polarisation, but what got us here? The constant debasement of the public discourse at the hands of demagogues who have no desire or incentive to tell the truth when they keep being rewarded when all they do is grift.
Nobody is above and beyond criticism.
I believe that the Privileges Committee was entirely right to sanction Johnson in the way that it did. But, I also think that MPs and others have the right to criticise that decision.
No one, other than their constituents, has the right to remove them from public office.
As LJ Sedley put it "freedom of speech, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to say things that others don't want to hear."
There need to be standards of speech, like libel or hate speech or incitement, that accept that speech is an action and actions can cause harm. If you believe in a democratic state, that state needs methods of defending itself. Many people here argue “hang em and flog em” for climate protesters who at worst are an inconvenience, but defend the right of those who can leverage their platforms to purposefully erode trust in democratic society to their own ends. It is clear these kinds of people, the Trumps, the Johnsons, the Tuckers or the Farages, do not care about anything but their own power and influence, and are willing for everything to burn down for it. Why should we have to accept the destruction of institutions in favour of the rich and powerful? Why should we protect them when they just want to use us all up, suck the life juice out of us, and discard us? It isn’t a slippery slope to say “those who already have power and privilege have an obligation to use that in a way that doesn’t lead to the erosion of civil society”. I’m not saying lock them up, necessarily, but fuck them. If I went up to an MP to boo or shout at them, with the new anti protest laws, am I protected? No. Because the same people who cry free speech whilst they are setting everything on fire are crying about how mean it is and saying it should be illegal to call them arsonists.
If the people who say things you dislike are barred from office, do you think that will strengthen democracy or weaken it?
When you censor such people, all you're demonstrating is that you cannot refute them.
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
If that is the lesson they learn then we are truly fucked. And if you think that all the lockdowns were unecessary then you are deluded.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support? Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
Or you can do what Sweden did, which was far better. Offer support to those who want it or need it, but leave it then to educated people to make responsible choices.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
And when companies insist that people come into work? How do you deal wih that?
Or when shops and businesses are stuck with making a choice between risking their lives by opening or risking their business by staying closed?
I am assuming you are not suggesting that we should still have the costs of lockdown in terms of Government support and furlough schemes and just let people choose whether they take them or not? That would be unworkable.
Sweden had a furlough scheme.
We had a furlough scheme even post-lockdown.
Yes I am 100% proposing support is offered but then people choose whether to take it or not. As we did post-lockdown, and Sweden did throughout.
People regularly die doing everyday activities such as commuting to work, and working. In H&S the standard looked for is as low as reasonably practicable and the obsession with zero covid seems to go well beyond this reasonable approach.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
Many of you weren't complaining much about the IRA or Hamas blowing up women and children and further back about Stalin and Pol Pot either.
"Many of you ?" You are talking some utter shite today.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
None of your arguments on this can have any traction for as long as only 60% of homes with planning permission are actually being built. And this is not a case of having land in the pipeline or any of those feeble excuses. The number of unbuilt homes with planning permissions has been going up by between 80 and 100 thousand a year for more than a decade.
Deal with that and then come back and look at planning - 90% of which has nothing to do with 'permission' and is only concerned with the necessery conditions attached to permission.
You are obsessed with this figure as if it actually means anything or addresses any of the concerns raised. It does not. Quite the opposite, your figure demonstrates that my concerns are valid.
Why do you think that figure is remotely relevant?
There are two reasons why houses might have permission but not be built which are both fuelled by the planning system being the problem.
One is that as I said land with permission is worth magnitudes more than land without. So people with zero intention of actually building a house can seek to get permission in the hope of artificially inflating the value of their land in order to then flog it to someone else with a permission premium in the price. If they fail to flog it, then land will never be developed, as they were operating in bad faith all along and only doing so due to the permission system inflating the value of land with permission so much.
The second is that land with permission can be controlled by a local monopoly or oligopoly of developers. This was a key concern I raised and you dismiss because you look at a percentage figure and think it matters. That oligopoly can choose to go slow or develop land at their preferred pace because they know they're safe from competition because the planning system acts as a barrier of entry against competitors.
Your percentage figure is not relevant to the debate in the way you think it is. That people are abusing the planning system to inflate the value of their land banks is precisely a flaw of the planning system that would be resolved with planning reform.
Garbage. Your argument would only apply if planning applications were being routinely denied. They are not. Over 90% of all housing planning applications are approved by the local authorities without reference to a higher authority. And half of those which are appealed by developers are then granted with conditions to satisfy the local authority concerns.
Your whole argument about planning is just riubbish and reveals a profound ignorance of what planning is actually for and what it does.
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
If that is the lesson they learn then we are truly fucked. And if you think that all the lockdowns were unecessary then you are deluded.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support? Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
Or you can do what Sweden did, which was far better. Offer support to those who want it or need it, but leave it then to educated people to make responsible choices.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
AFAIK Sweden's rules were guidance and encouragement rather than police enforcement.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
Would you say that, when people are driving, we should give guidance on what speed to drive at, but then let people choose?
No, I'm a liberal not an anarchist.
But I don't view driving 100mph outside a school as the same as sending a child to school.
In some situations, the actions of someone carrying an infectious disease or possibly carrying an infectious disease can be as dangerous as driving at 100mph outside a school. Of course we should weigh up costs and benefits, but I don’t see why you are so absolute against legally-enforceable public health restrictions in a pandemic, but fine with limits on driving.
I don’t know what the next pandemic will be. I hope we don’t have lockdowns ever again, but I see no reason to rule them out as an option in extremis.
Imagine having Dorries as your MP. 5 days ago you were going to have a new representative to look after your interests after she blatantly told you she wasn’t interested in doing so anymore. Now, instead of leaving she’s going to bedblock you getting the representation you deserve by running a one woman crusade against the honours committee.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
None of your arguments on this can have any traction for as long as only 60% of homes with planning permission are actually being built. And this is not a case of having land in the pipeline or any of those feeble excuses. The number of unbuilt homes with planning permissions has been going up by between 80 and 100 thousand a year for more than a decade.
Deal with that and then come back and look at planning - 90% of which has nothing to do with 'permission' and is only concerned with the necessery conditions attached to permission.
The most reasonable approach is to allow more development but tax the land value increase heavily - currently too many developments are based on which local councillor you are mates with
Who will play Boris in the next biopic? Surely there must be one in the works, or several. The Hatton Garden robbery gave us half a dozen films and series. We can't wait for The Crown.
Boris instinctively wants to be liked. He doesnt want to moderate his behaviour in order to obtain such approval, so in the face of adversity or scrutiny, he lies.
That's a good point, if Boris behaved better and followed rules he wouldn't need to lie so much, but he's not changed at all. He's the same skirt-chasing, lazy, ignorant, loudmouth he was a young man, and so in a job with a huge amount of public scrutiny he ends up lying and lying and lying to try and cover-up what we all can plainly see.
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
If that is the lesson they learn then we are truly fucked. And if you think that all the lockdowns were unecessary then you are deluded.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support? Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
Or you can do what Sweden did, which was far better. Offer support to those who want it or need it, but leave it then to educated people to make responsible choices.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
AFAIK Sweden's rules were guidance and encouragement rather than police enforcement.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
Would you say that, when people are driving, we should give guidance on what speed to drive at, but then let people choose?
No, I'm a liberal not an anarchist.
But I don't view driving 100mph outside a school as the same as sending a child to school.
In some situations, the actions of someone carrying an infectious disease or possibly carrying an infectious disease can be as dangerous as driving at 100mph outside a school. Of course we should weigh up costs and benefits, but I don’t see why you are so absolute against legally-enforceable public health restrictions in a pandemic, but fine with limits on driving.
I don’t know what the next pandemic will be. I hope we don’t have lockdowns ever again, but I see no reason to rule them out as an option in extremis.
Well, many reasons for one but not the other, but the simplest is that there are a hell of a lot more downsides to missing months of school than to be unable to exceed speed limits.
Nick Tyrone @NicholasTyrone · 5h Nigel Farage appears to believe that Brexit has failed, not because Brexit was a bad idea, but because Boris Johnson screwed it up. So now he wants to fix Brexit by....teaming up with Boris Johnson.
Imagine having Dorries as your MP. 5 days ago you were going to have a new representative to look after your interests after she blatantly told you she wasn’t interested in doing so anymore. Now, instead of leaving she’s going to bedblock you getting the representation you deserve by running a one woman crusade against the honours committee.
Sunak should have whipped the Johnson report vote - then he could have taken removed the whip from all the Johnson diehards. There is a precedent, after all.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
None of your arguments on this can have any traction for as long as only 60% of homes with planning permission are actually being built. And this is not a case of having land in the pipeline or any of those feeble excuses. The number of unbuilt homes with planning permissions has been going up by between 80 and 100 thousand a year for more than a decade.
Deal with that and then come back and look at planning - 90% of which has nothing to do with 'permission' and is only concerned with the necessery conditions attached to permission.
The most reasonable approach is to allow more development but tax the land value increase heavily - currently too many developments are based on which local councillor you are mates with
That is a myth. Almost all planning consents are decided by councillors in line with planning office recommendations. Unless you are suggesting widespread fraud by staff council employees and officials then you claim really has no grounds. There are exceptional circumstances where councillors reject planning office recommendations but they are usually high profile and thus in the public spotlight.
Rory: I am struggling to find anyone from history as immoral [as Johnson]
Er.. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc etc might have something today about that?
Yes, as per my correction above. The field was really British politicians
Lloyd George was a bit of an old rascal. Some would say Blair telling lies to justify his illegal wasn't very moral either...
Neither Lloyd George nor Blair reached Johnson's level of disregard for the truth.
Johnson is a sociopath imo, very similar to but perhaps not (allowed to be) as extreme as Trump.
(Regarding Trump's mental view of the world, I cannot recommend Mary Trump's biog 'Too much and never enough' too highly - it's very good.)
Even if we accept Blair was lying rather than wrong, we can see why he was lying, and the same with almost all politicians but with Boris, there often seems no reason to it, no payoff. Much of it could be classed as bullshit rather than lies because to lie means acknowledging some form of objective truth.
I think Blair was bullshitting *himself* at the same time as building the lies that went with it. If that sounds familiar….
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
Many of you weren't complaining much about the IRA or Hamas blowing up women and children and further back about Stalin and Pol Pot either.
"Many of you ?" You are talking some utter shite today.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
Many of you weren't complaining much about the IRA or Hamas blowing up women and children and further back about Stalin and Pol Pot either.
"Many of you ?" You are talking some utter shite today.
He does have a point though. I wasn't complaining about Stalin, nor Pol Pot. I wasn't born, but that's just a wet lefty liberal excuse!
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
Many of you weren't complaining much about the IRA or Hamas blowing up women and children and further back about Stalin and Pol Pot either.
"Many of you ?" You are talking some utter shite today.
An unnecessary qualifier at the end.
I disagree. Infuriating as he is on occasion, he's an interesting contributor, even if I rarely agree with anything he says.
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
If that is the lesson they learn then we are truly fucked. And if you think that all the lockdowns were unecessary then you are deluded.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support? Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
Or you can do what Sweden did, which was far better. Offer support to those who want it or need it, but leave it then to educated people to make responsible choices.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
AFAIK Sweden's rules were guidance and encouragement rather than police enforcement.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
Would you say that, when people are driving, we should give guidance on what speed to drive at, but then let people choose?
No, I'm a liberal not an anarchist.
But I don't view driving 100mph outside a school as the same as sending a child to school.
In some situations, the actions of someone carrying an infectious disease or possibly carrying an infectious disease can be as dangerous as driving at 100mph outside a school. Of course we should weigh up costs and benefits, but I don’t see why you are so absolute against legally-enforceable public health restrictions in a pandemic, but fine with limits on driving.
I don’t know what the next pandemic will be. I hope we don’t have lockdowns ever again, but I see no reason to rule them out as an option in extremis.
Well, many reasons for one but not the other, but the simplest is that there are a hell of a lot more downsides to missing months of school than to be unable to exceed speed limits.
The costs and benefits are very different. It’s going to depend on what the pandemic is. It’s going to depend on what lockdown is proposed. (A week long lockdown during the summer holidays isn’t going to have the same impact as a months long lockdown.) It depends on what sort of road is outside the school. What I don’t see is a rationale as to why there could never be a case where a lockdown could be the right approach. I question Bart’s absolutism.
>> Late yesterday, sent following email to House of Commons Enquiry Service:
Dear HC Enquiries,
I am emailing you, in hopes you may be able to answer following question:
When it comes to providing services to constituents, what is procedure when an MP leaves the House by accepting office under the crown AND a new MP has not yet been elected?
Specifically, does the former MP have any remaining responsibilities for his former constituents in this situation?
Or must they contact some other MP for help? Or what?
Thank you in advance for your professional assistance!
>> This morning, received following response:
Thank you for your email.
When a Member of Parliament steps down there is no standard procedure for how the work of that MP will be managed until a new MP is in place. Whilst it would only be an informal arrangement, typically an MP of the same party in a neighbouring constituency manages constituency matters until a by-election is held.
I hope this proves helpful.
>> That's good enough for me, but if any other PBer wants to enquire further:
I wonder whether the article that Sunak, Jenrick and Dowden wrote for The Times on 5 June 2019 entitled "The Tories are in deep peril. Only Boris Johnson can save us" will be hanging like an albatross around Sunak's neck?
>> Late yesterday, sent following email to House of Commons Enquiry Service:
Dear HC Enquiries,
I am emailing you, in hopes you may be able to answer following question:
When it comes to providing services to constituents, what is procedure when an MP leaves the House by accepting office under the crown AND a new MP has not yet been elected?
Specifically, does the former MP have any remaining responsibilities for his former constituents in this situation?
Or must they contact some other MP for help? Or what?
Thank you in advance for your professional assistance!
>> This morning, received following response:
Thank you for your email.
When a Member of Parliament steps down there is no standard procedure for how the work of that MP will be managed until a new MP is in place. Whilst it would only be an informal arrangement, typically an MP of the same party in a neighbouring constituency manages constituency matters until a by-election is held.
I hope this proves helpful.
>> That's good enough for me, but if any other PBer wants to enquire further:
Thank you for actually taking the time to enquire. It's slightly sad that it took someone from overseas to bother to actually ask the question of the House of Commons rather than rant at each other without checking to see.
Who will play Boris in the next biopic? Surely there must be one in the works, or several. The Hatton Garden robbery gave us half a dozen films and series. We can't wait for The Crown.
Isn't there a young HoL nominee with some resemblance?
Rory: I am struggling to find anyone from history as immoral [as Johnson]
Er.. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc etc might have something today about that?
Yes, as per my correction above. The field was really British politicians
Lloyd George was a bit of an old rascal. Some would say Blair telling lies to justify his illegal wasn't very moral either...
Neither Lloyd George nor Blair reached Johnson's level of disregard for the truth.
Johnson is a sociopath imo, very similar to but perhaps not (allowed to be) as extreme as Trump.
(Regarding Trump's mental view of the world, I cannot recommend Mary Trump's biog 'Too much and never enough' too highly - it's very good.)
Even if we accept Blair was lying rather than wrong, we can see why he was lying, and the same with almost all politicians but with Boris, there often seems no reason to it, no payoff. Much of it could be classed as bullshit rather than lies because to lie means acknowledging some form of objective truth.
I think Blair was bullshitting *himself* at the same time as building the lies that went with it. If that sounds familiar….
Blair had an almost religious-level of zeal in his bullshittery when it hinged on something he cared passionately about (like the case for war in Iraq). So I suspect there is something in what you say.
Who will play Boris in the next biopic? Surely there must be one in the works, or several. The Hatton Garden robbery gave us half a dozen films and series. We can't wait for The Crown.
It appears that the Dorries has decided not to resign as an MP yet. You can imagine just how horrendous her contribution in next Monday's debate is going to be! Indeed we will have a line up of fawning lickspittles all fingering their Boris Bauble whilst entirely coincidentally saying how the report is an outrage.
And then the Dorries. I want flying spittle. I want her named for refusing to shut up or retract the most unparliamentary language. Go on Nadine, show them how a working class girl from Liverpool fights the establishment.
Who will play Boris in the next biopic? Surely there must be one in the works, or several. The Hatton Garden robbery gave us half a dozen films and series. We can't wait for The Crown.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
None of your arguments on this can have any traction for as long as only 60% of homes with planning permission are actually being built. And this is not a case of having land in the pipeline or any of those feeble excuses. The number of unbuilt homes with planning permissions has been going up by between 80 and 100 thousand a year for more than a decade.
Deal with that and then come back and look at planning - 90% of which has nothing to do with 'permission' and is only concerned with the necessery conditions attached to permission.
You are obsessed with this figure as if it actually means anything or addresses any of the concerns raised. It does not. Quite the opposite, your figure demonstrates that my concerns are valid.
Why do you think that figure is remotely relevant?
There are two reasons why houses might have permission but not be built which are both fuelled by the planning system being the problem.
One is that as I said land with permission is worth magnitudes more than land without. So people with zero intention of actually building a house can seek to get permission in the hope of artificially inflating the value of their land in order to then flog it to someone else with a permission premium in the price. If they fail to flog it, then land will never be developed, as they were operating in bad faith all along and only doing so due to the permission system inflating the value of land with permission so much.
The second is that land with permission can be controlled by a local monopoly or oligopoly of developers. This was a key concern I raised and you dismiss because you look at a percentage figure and think it matters. That oligopoly can choose to go slow or develop land at their preferred pace because they know they're safe from competition because the planning system acts as a barrier of entry against competitors.
Your percentage figure is not relevant to the debate in the way you think it is. That people are abusing the planning system to inflate the value of their land banks is precisely a flaw of the planning system that would be resolved with planning reform.
Garbage. Your argument would only apply if planning applications were being routinely denied. They are not. Over 90% of all housing planning applications are approved by the local authorities without reference to a higher authority. And half of those which are appealed by developers are then granted with conditions to satisfy the local authority concerns.
Your whole argument about planning is just riubbish and reveals a profound ignorance of what planning is actually for and what it does.
10% being routinely designed by your own figures means they are being routinely denied.
If you're an independent, small tradesman who could develop a house but has limited capital would you put all your capital into buying a plot of land knowing there's a 10% chance that your application would be denied thus tying up all your capital into an asset you can't develop?
No, of course you won't and nor will anyone else, which is why the small businesses that can develop houses around the world are crowded out in this country by an oligopoly who can control the market instead.
The tories are going to need some very nuanced messaging on brexit. Brexit's brilliant but the person who delivered it is a fucking swindler might be a tough sell.
The tories are going to need some very nuanced messaging on brexit. Brexit's brilliant but the person who delivered it is a fucking swindler might be a tough sell.
If the guy who sold you those shares in a Nigerian Bridge project is subsequently proved to be the biggest con-man since Charles Ponzi - PROVED beyond all doubt or contradiction - don't you think you should maybe start checking that bridge investment out?
Comments
But I don't view driving 100mph outside a school as the same as sending a child to school.
Deal with that and then come back and look at planning - 90% of which has nothing to do with 'permission' and is only concerned with the necessery conditions attached to permission.
I believe that the Privileges Committee was entirely right to sanction Johnson in the way that it did. But, I also think that MPs and others have the right to criticise that decision.
No one, other than their constituents, has the right to remove them from public office.
As LJ Sedley put it "freedom of speech, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to say things that others don't want to hear."
She was 87, so at least she had a good innings
But it remains notable and significant I think that Boris's pre report rhetoric goes far beyond claiming process problems and absurd judgement calls by the Committee. That's a standard approach to these types of thing.
No, that his and allies' rhetoric included focus on being expelled (which he wasn't) on the say so of a few MPs, and how dare that happen, it really comes down to a view that there should be no standards regime at all, because the logic follows how dare a Committee punish any MP for actions or words?
It is interesting not many are honest that is the point, which is probably why everything else is emphasised hysterically.
https://twitter.com/mrmatthewtodd/status/1669242846648455170?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ
NEW
Former PM Cameron, former Chancellor Osborne, current Chancellor and former Health Secretary Hunt, all called up to give evidence at the Covid Inquiry next week… with one of the themes the impact of “spending commitments” and “resources” and “levels of funding”
Law breaker. Liar. "Right Honourable".
I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
Johnson is a sociopath imo, very similar to but perhaps not (allowed to be) as extreme as Trump.
(Regarding Trump's mental view of the world, I cannot recommend Mary Trump's biog 'Too much and never enough' too highly - it's very good.)
One UK outlet has picked it up tbf:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/15/record-temperatures-global-heating
You can’t fix the housing shortage without fixing planning, somehow.
But I am still left wing and I won't criticise people who have been oppressed throughout history and are fighting back against it. So if you want to have a pop at me for that, feel free.
Boris Johnson exits as he entered, with deceit and contempt
https://twitter.com/ftukpolitics/status/1669307956905623552
Why do you think that figure is remotely relevant?
There are two reasons why houses might have permission but not be built which are both fuelled by the planning system being the problem.
One is that as I said land with permission is worth magnitudes more than land without. So people with zero intention of actually building a house can seek to get permission in the hope of artificially inflating the value of their land in order to then flog it to someone else with a permission premium in the price. If they fail to flog it, then land will never be developed, as they were operating in bad faith all along and only doing so due to the permission system inflating the value of land with permission so much.
The second is that land with permission can be controlled by a local monopoly or oligopoly of developers. This was a key concern I raised and you dismiss because you look at a percentage figure and think it matters. That oligopoly can choose to go slow or develop land at their preferred pace because they know they're safe from competition because the planning system acts as a barrier of entry against competitors.
Your percentage figure is not relevant to the debate in the way you think it is. That people are abusing the planning system to inflate the value of their land banks is precisely a flaw of the planning system that would be resolved with planning reform.
How about hatred a reaction somewhere between indifference and irritation towards tedious bores with an outdated and sepia-tinted perspective on how the world ought to be and a sense of perpetual outrage against the cultural, economic and social norms of contemporary life?
When caught out by a fact check, he frequently argues that he was "effectively" still correct.
Nonsense, of course - but it renders such protracted arguments tedious, and a waste of your time.
Imagine saying that your beer was perceived as ‘too fratty’, ‘out of touch’ and ‘needing to be more inclusive’, then hiring a very controversial cross-dressing ‘influencer’, with an audience of mostly underage teens, to promote the brand.
It has totally eviscerated Johnson, and is returning to sanity.
When you censor such people, all you're demonstrating is that you cannot refute them.
You are talking some utter shite today.
Your whole argument about planning is just riubbish and reveals a profound ignorance of what planning is actually for and what it does.
I don’t know what the next pandemic will be. I hope we don’t have lockdowns ever again, but I see no reason to rule them out as an option in extremis.
Not one of his best.
Too soon?
https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1669308873092505601?s=20
@NicholasTyrone
·
5h
Nigel Farage appears to believe that Brexit has failed, not because Brexit was a bad idea, but because Boris Johnson screwed it up. So now he wants to fix Brexit by....teaming up with Boris Johnson.
The Tories themselves look hopelessly divided.
And Nadine needs an intervention.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1669311254429573122?s=20
Infuriating as he is on occasion, he's an interesting contributor, even if I rarely agree with anything he says.
>> Late yesterday, sent following email to House of Commons Enquiry Service:
Dear HC Enquiries,
I am emailing you, in hopes you may be able to answer following question:
When it comes to providing services to constituents, what is procedure
when an MP leaves the House by accepting office under the crown AND a
new MP has not yet been elected?
Specifically, does the former MP have any remaining responsibilities
for his former constituents in this situation?
Or must they contact some other MP for help? Or what?
Thank you in advance for your professional assistance!
>> This morning, received following response:
Thank you for your email.
When a Member of Parliament steps down there is no standard procedure for how the work of that MP will be managed until a new MP is in place. Whilst it would only be an informal arrangement, typically an MP of the same party in a neighbouring constituency manages constituency matters until a by-election is held.
I hope this proves helpful.
>> That's good enough for me, but if any other PBer wants to enquire further:
hcenquiries@parliament.uk
+44 (0)20 7219 4272 | Text relay: 18001 020 7219 4272
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-tories-are-in-deep-peril-only-boris-johnson-can-save-us-3xq9lrvr3 (£££)
Boris is an absolute swindler. He lied and lied and lied again about Covid, supported and enabled by a gang of cronies.
I wonder what other hoaxes he was involved in.
It's not as if he's got much else to do.
And then the Dorries. I want flying spittle. I want her named for refusing to shut up or retract the most unparliamentary language. Go on Nadine, show them how a working class girl from Liverpool fights the establishment.
https://twitter.com/stevehillage/status/1669306275564232705
If you're an independent, small tradesman who could develop a house but has limited capital would you put all your capital into buying a plot of land knowing there's a 10% chance that your application would be denied thus tying up all your capital into an asset you can't develop?
No, of course you won't and nor will anyone else, which is why the small businesses that can develop houses around the world are crowded out in this country by an oligopoly who can control the market instead.
Hey, Brexit supporters!
If the guy who sold you those shares in a Nigerian Bridge project is subsequently proved to be the biggest con-man since Charles Ponzi - PROVED beyond all doubt or contradiction - don't you think you should maybe start checking that bridge investment out?