Mr. Leon, during the collectivisation of farming, and the ensuing famine, the Soviet Union exported large quantities of grain to 'prove' there was no famine.
Also one of the few sources of hard currency to the USSR at the time. Similar in some ways to the Irish Famine 80 years earlier, where Ireland continued to export food to England.
That was because it was the English running the country and did not give a toss if the Irish were starving.
Russia launched 67 drones/missiles at Ukraine last night (thankfully 85% were shot down)
It gives every sign of NOT running out of ordnance
60 in one night, if replicated, would be 20,000 or so in a year - it doesn't sound like endless supplies either, even if any number that get through are potentially devastating.
Eddie Izzard is - or was - a fantastic comedian, and probably a great bloke
But he makes a crap tranny. He looks like a guy wearing bad lipstick. Is he even trying to look female? Or is the mere act of dressing female that makes him happy? True transvestism perhaps
One opportunity is for these cheap modular buildings to disrupt the Uk housebuilding industry. Not the Ilke Homes £200k per dwelling modular buildings - but the £20k modular structures based on static caravans which seem similar to that set out in the link above. I think that - if properly maintained - they can last indefinetly. The 'missing' 7 million houses that we have failed to build could be replaced by this type of modular bungalow. I think they could also be quite easily adapted to provide boklok style maisonettes stacked on top of each other to save space. If you CPO the land and sideline the long list of inevitable objections then you can sort the housing issues in the UK out in one electoral cycle.
UK 1944-48 did it too (to some extent). The prefabs of that time came in different varieties, to be sure, but the good ones were much loved (some still are).
We've built a few in Waverley for people temporarily displaced for one reason or another (our current homelessness count is happily 0) - they aren't pretty, but the people using them are very appreciastive.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
In fairness, what possible use would the armed forced have for a legal intellectual powerhouse? They might make someone look bad.
Oh, armed forces always need legal expertise, for the court-martial system. But a conscript, for maybe 1-2 years? Not worth training in military law, I'd think, not to mention the existence of established (permanent) staff.
Russia launched 67 drones/missiles at Ukraine last night (thankfully 85% were shot down)
It gives every sign of NOT running out of ordnance
They haven't launched that many for quite a while. It is a reaction to the damaging of the Russian warship yesterday. If Russia had lots of stocks of missiles they would be doing it every day. They don't.
Russia launched 67 drones/missiles at Ukraine last night (thankfully 85% were shot down)
It gives every sign of NOT running out of ordnance
They haven't launched that many for quite a while. It is a reaction to the damaging of the Russian warship yesterday. If Russia had lots of stocks of missiles they would be doing it every day. They don't.
The position seems to be: they do not have an unlimited supply, but nor are they “running out” - as was predicted on here multiple times last year. “Two weeks supply left” etc
The head of GCHQ told us they were about to run out last October. If he doesn't have a fucking clue then who does?
What was his exact quote, and which class of weapon did it refer to? This quote about today's attack said "67 drones/missiles", and we know that Russia is getting lots of drones from Iran and possibly others.
One opportunity is for these cheap modular buildings to disrupt the Uk housebuilding industry. Not the Ilke Homes £200k per dwelling modular buildings - but the £20k modular structures based on static caravans which seem similar to that set out in the link above. I think that - if properly maintained - they can last indefinetly. The 'missing' 7 million houses that we have failed to build could be replaced by this type of modular bungalow. I think they could also be quite easily adapted to provide boklok style maisonettes stacked on top of each other to save space. If you CPO the land and sideline the long list of inevitable objections then you can sort the housing issues in the UK out in one electoral cycle.
UK 1944-48 did it too (to some extent). The prefabs of that time came in different varieties, to be sure, but the good ones were much loved (some still are).
We've built a few in Waverley for people temporarily displaced for one reason or another (our current homelessness count is happily 0) - they aren't pretty, but the people using them are very appreciastive.
Oh, I had no idea someone was being sensible/sane/humane: maybe this stuff?
That's a very long article to say he has no idea what is happening but hopes for the best.
There isn't much evidence of a master plan on either side; it's all just hit and hope.
Given the supposed mismatch and fantasy that the Russians were No2 army in the world, it looks very embarrassing to me. I suspect the Russians would struggle to beat a carpet given what we have seen so far.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I’ve heard rumours of non-Ukrainian men of fighting age encountering problems exiting the country. Seriously. Be careful. The Ukrainians are massively watchful of draft dodgers and one of the easiest ways to escape Ukraine, if you’re 18-60, is to get a fake passport
My bus out of Ukraine on Friday was held up for two hours as the Ukrainians minutely inspected all the documents. The Romanians waved us through in 10 minutes
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
Bryant is not introducing a new law just for one person. From the FT:
Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”.
Yes, it will also apply to others afterwards (of course), but it is evidently targeted at her. Because he names her.
I don't like Dorries. I can't say how good or bad she has been as a constituency MP, but IMV she has not been a good parliamentary MP, and I disagree with many of her views. But changing the rules to get at her is wrong IMO.
It is quite certain, that if such a mechanism was used against an MP they like, a large number of those in favour of this would discover that “this is a special case”, “harassment” and “dictatorship”.
Lawyers, in their wife’s kimonos, would be striking heroic poses on the steps of the Supreme Court.
The 1801 law seems interesting wrt the wording. I assume 'Town' means London. Does this mean that MPs living in London would be exempt, because they are not out of 'town'? It seems too archaic to be useful (IANAL).
The answer seems quite simple to me: let voters decide. We have regular elections in this country. If an MP does something very wrong, they can be subjected to recall. Otherwise, let the voters decide at an election.
But this also requires data on attendance to be publicly available - however you define 'attendance'.
Fwiw, I like many Londoners who live in the suburbs use the term ‘going to town’ to mean a visit to the centre. As it happens today my wife and I will be going to town to meet a friend for lunch.
Of course, Mr Nashe. Same thing. On 1801 today's suburbs were way out in the countryside. So "town" was the smart part of London, nowadays the West End.
And if I remember rightly, the months when Parliament sat corresponded to the social Season, so anybody who mattered was bound to be "in town" anyway.
The rest of the year was for hunting, shooting, fishing, visiting friends in their stately homes and travelling abroad.
But what is Ms Dorries actually doing with her time?
Professional whingebag on multiple media outlets plus putting out her self-pitying Boris ‘assassination’ screed.
To make it clear: I don't like Dorries. I don't think she's been a good MP, or improved the country or her constituents' lives. Or even particularly care for her constituents. I will be happy when she is no longer in parliament.
But the same could be said for many MPs of all parties.
If you want to get rid of Dorries, do it properly. Not like this.
But it's not about the quality of her work. It's that Dorries does no work. As one of her local parish councils observed, she is never seen in the constituency. She holds no constituency surgeries. She does not attend Parliament. So we are paying her £84k or whatever it is for zilch.
Now, if you can identify other MPs who are simply not doing any work at all for their salary, Bryant would, I'm sure, be after them. But there is something in between doing nothing at all and doing a good job.
Then decide what an MP has to do as a job, what the minimal standard is, have 'punishments' for when they do not do it, and exceptions (e.g. illness). For instance, I'd argue Stuart Bell wasn't doing his job as an MP, despite turning up to parliament. O'Mara certainly was not, but pleaded illness.
That's a very long article to say he has no idea what is happening but hopes for the best.
There isn't much evidence of a master plan on either side; it's all just hit and hope.
Given the supposed mismatch and fantasy that the Russians were No2 army in the world, it looks very embarrassing to me. I suspect the Russians would struggle to beat a carpet given what we have seen so far.
I'm all for the view that no one has a great deal of certain knowledge about the Ukraine/Russia situation. But it's weird that whilst people do in fact acknowledge that you cannot just trust what Ukraine says about what is going on, doommongers are supposed to be taken on faith.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
More his long standing project is coming to fruition with a howling great example being extremly topical at just the right moment. What is he supposed to do, ignore her? And actually he does to some extent - see Graun interview tandem, as reported here earlier.
It's a very glossy campaign more suited to an actual election than a candidate selection. Izzard appears to be aiming over the heads of the local party members, which I think could well backfire. https://www.eddieizzard.uk/
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I really don't think that is what is happening. It looks like Bryant is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the system, motivated by disgust at how standards have deteriorated in recent years. He's merely using the case of Nadine Dorries as a newsworthy hook to gain attention for his book. That's how the news media works. Harking back to cases like Jared O'Mara and Owen Paterson (as Bryant does) simply isn't going to be seen as newsworthy in the way that Dorries will be.
I don't get the impression that Bryant has Dorries high on his list of offenders against MP standards over the course of this Parliament.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
That's a very long article to say he has no idea what is happening but hopes for the best.
There isn't much evidence of a master plan on either side; it's all just hit and hope.
Given the supposed mismatch and fantasy that the Russians were No2 army in the world, it looks very embarrassing to me. I suspect the Russians would struggle to beat a carpet given what we have seen so far.
I'm all for the view that no one has a great deal of certain knowledge about the Ukraine/Russia situation. But it's weird that whilst people do in fact acknowledge that you cannot just trust what Ukraine says about what is going on, doommongers are supposed to be taken on faith.
That’s not true at all. When we get obvious pro-Putin shills on here - “Ukraine is collapsing and Zelensky’s a Nazi” - they get short shrift
Indeed, PB has a pro-Ukraine bias and is - to my mind - more eager to hear good news about the war - “Ukraine is winning” - than bad. And emotionally that’s understandable
It’s our job to weigh the “real” evidence, as best we can, absent emotion
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I really don't think that is what is happening. It looks like Bryant is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the system, motivated by disgust at how standards have deteriorated in recent years. He's merely using the case of Nadine Dorries as a newsworthy hook to gain attention for his book. That's how the news media works. Harking back to cases like Jared O'Mara and Owen Paterson (as Bryant does) simply isn't going to be seen as newsworthy in the way that Dorries will be.
I don't get the impression that Bryant has Dorries high on his list of offenders against MP standards over the course of this Parliament.
Most of those other offenders have gone. Dorries has not, and therefore is still a big political target that 'his' team can exploit.
As someone else said below, it'd been better if Bryant had targeted someone on his own team.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
They are not. Bryant has written an entire book suggesting Parliamentary reforms - this is one if them.
No doubt the government will try that line.
@Icarus made a comment below from the FT that shows you are wrong:
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
It's difficult to see how you can say he is not targeting her. Retrospectively, in fact.
If course he is targeting her - but he is not "targeting one person", as you claim.
The rule has been around since 1801, so it's hardly retrospective.
Has it been around, or has it been rescinded (what does 'restoration of...') mean?
As it probably has not been used for many decades, who gets to decide what the archaic wording means in the context of a modern parliament? Parliament itself? The committee?
And yes, he is clearly targeting her alone. If he was not, he would have mentioned other cases that would also have warranted this. And sadly, there are a fair few.
He is not "clearly targeting her alone," he is - for a start - launching a book he started on back in the days of good King Boris, and has a track record of concern about the conduct of tory MPs. Remember Paterson?
We have a whole profession dedicated to interpreting archaic wording in contemporary contexts, called lawyers.
The mentioning of other cases thing is a decision of the journalist writing the article, not the interviewee.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I really don't think that is what is happening. It looks like Bryant is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the system, motivated by disgust at how standards have deteriorated in recent years. He's merely using the case of Nadine Dorries as a newsworthy hook to gain attention for his book. That's how the news media works. Harking back to cases like Jared O'Mara and Owen Paterson (as Bryant does) simply isn't going to be seen as newsworthy in the way that Dorries will be.
I don't get the impression that Bryant has Dorries high on his list of offenders against MP standards over the course of this Parliament.
Most of those other offenders have gone. Dorries has not, and therefore is still a big political target that 'his' team can exploit.
As someone else said below, it'd been better if Bryant had targeted someone on his own team.
You really have no clue how the media work do you?
If Bryant and his "team" had been gunning for Dorries, how did he manage to do an interview for the Guardian about his reform book without mentioning her at all?
if you read the quote from the FT you see that he says "it wouldn't be unreasonable" for Parliament to resurrect the 1801 rule. I'd go further than in my previous post, this reads as though the FT journalist asked Bryant about Dorries, and that Bryant would rather talk about other examples. The FT managed to get their quote so that they can run the story in the way that has you all riled up.
That's a very long article to say he has no idea what is happening but hopes for the best.
There isn't much evidence of a master plan on either side; it's all just hit and hope.
Given the supposed mismatch and fantasy that the Russians were No2 army in the world, it looks very embarrassing to me. I suspect the Russians would struggle to beat a carpet given what we have seen so far.
I'm all for the view that no one has a great deal of certain knowledge about the Ukraine/Russia situation. But it's weird that whilst people do in fact acknowledge that you cannot just trust what Ukraine says about what is going on, doommongers are supposed to be taken on faith.
Actions speak louder than words , soon be 2 years and russians are going backwards other than in the murder of civilians.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I really don't think that is what is happening. It looks like Bryant is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the system, motivated by disgust at how standards have deteriorated in recent years. He's merely using the case of Nadine Dorries as a newsworthy hook to gain attention for his book. That's how the news media works. Harking back to cases like Jared O'Mara and Owen Paterson (as Bryant does) simply isn't going to be seen as newsworthy in the way that Dorries will be.
I don't get the impression that Bryant has Dorries high on his list of offenders against MP standards over the course of this Parliament.
Most of those other offenders have gone. Dorries has not, and therefore is still a big political target that 'his' team can exploit.
As someone else said below, it'd been better if Bryant had targeted someone on his own team.
You really have no clue how the media work do you?
If Bryant and his "team" had been gunning for Dorries, how did he manage to do an interview for the Guardian about his reform book without mentioning her at all?
if you read the quote from the FT you see that he says "it wouldn't be unreasonable" for Parliament to resurrect the 1801 rule. I'd go further than in my previous post, this reads as though the FT journalist asked Bryant about Dorries, and that Bryant would rather talk about other examples. The FT managed to get their quote so that they can run the story in the way that has you all riled up.
Of course I read the FT quote. You know, the one I've been quoting.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
ON topic. I went on a geriatric Stag Night yesterday - 8 hours in multiple locations across Covent Garden/Soho
Almost everywhere was RAMMED. Streets so full of people cars couldn’t get through. Yes it was a Saturday night in summer but it was also filthy: 13C and raining
Central London is booming, at least around W1/WC2
It's crazy that Soho isn't pedestrianised (at least in the evenings/summer), purely from a counter-terrorism standpoint.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
The words "and for that matter, anybody else who hasn't turned up for six months" seem to refute your suggestion that it is just a personal vendetta.
ON topic. I went on a geriatric Stag Night yesterday - 8 hours in multiple locations across Covent Garden/Soho
Almost everywhere was RAMMED. Streets so full of people cars couldn’t get through. Yes it was a Saturday night in summer but it was also filthy: 13C and raining
Central London is booming, at least around W1/WC2
It's crazy that Soho isn't pedestrianised (at least in the evenings/summer), purely from a counter-terrorism standpoint.
Apparently Westminster Council believe cars keep Soho “real” and “authentic”. And add life
There might be something in that. Taxis outside The Groucho at 2am are a romantic sight
However cars are also a pain and if it was pedestrianised all the restaurants and bars could expand on to the street, gloriously, year round. So I tend to agree with you
ON topic. I went on a geriatric Stag Night yesterday - 8 hours in multiple locations across Covent Garden/Soho
Almost everywhere was RAMMED. Streets so full of people cars couldn’t get through. Yes it was a Saturday night in summer but it was also filthy: 13C and raining
Central London is booming, at least around W1/WC2
It's crazy that Soho isn't pedestrianised (at least in the evenings/summer), purely from a counter-terrorism standpoint.
Apparently Westminster Council believe cars keep Soho “real” and “authentic”. And add life
There might be something in that. Taxis outside The Groucho at 2am are a romantic sight
However cars are also a pain and if it was pedestrianised all the restaurants and bars could expand on to the street, gloriously, year round. So I tend to agree with you
I genuinely feel quite vulnerable there. Just needs one drugged up driver or religious fundamentalist and you could have hundreds dead. See the George Square bin lorry disaster in Glasgow.
The Royal Mile in Edinburgh is protected with anti-terror gates during the fringe for this reason, with the added benefit for all the restaurants and street performers.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
OT Sweden vs USA in the Women's World Cup on ITV at the moment. England are currently favourites from Spain. I'm starting to think Japan might win it.
On footy, I still can't see why Coventry are 5/1 today away at Leicester KO 1200. The M69 Derby is a feisty one, albeit not played for 10 years or so. I would think evens fair odds considering how Coventry only narrowly missed out on promotion in the playoff final and Leicester are at best a team in transition, with no reliable goalscorer.
Off shortly, so hope I am wrong and that it is a comfortable victory for us.
ON topic. I went on a geriatric Stag Night yesterday - 8 hours in multiple locations across Covent Garden/Soho
Almost everywhere was RAMMED. Streets so full of people cars couldn’t get through. Yes it was a Saturday night in summer but it was also filthy: 13C and raining
Central London is booming, at least around W1/WC2
It's crazy that Soho isn't pedestrianised (at least in the evenings/summer), purely from a counter-terrorism standpoint.
Apparently Westminster Council believe cars keep Soho “real” and “authentic”. And add life
There might be something in that. Taxis outside The Groucho at 2am are a romantic sight
However cars are also a pain and if it was pedestrianised all the restaurants and bars could expand on to the street, gloriously, year round. So I tend to agree with you
I genuinely feel quite vulnerable there. Just needs one drugged up driver or religious fundamentalist and you could have hundreds dead. See the George Square bin lorry disaster in Glasgow.
The Royal Mile in Edinburgh is protected with anti-terror gates during the fringe for this reason, with the added benefit for all the restaurants and street performers.
I’m not imagining the busyness of London. It is chocka with foreign tourists
“research collated by City Hall shows international arrivals to the capital have surged this year and could end up being well ahead even of the record year of 2019.
Two million more international visitors are forecast to arrive in London in 2023, compared with last year, which is projected to produce an extra £674 million in revenue.”
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
The words "and for that matter, anybody else who hasn't turned up for six months" seem to refute your suggestion that it is just a personal vendetta.
I refer you to my post a couple of posts below yours.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
They are not. Bryant has written an entire book suggesting Parliamentary reforms - this is one if them.
No doubt the government will try that line.
@Icarus made a comment below from the FT that shows you are wrong:
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
It's difficult to see how you can say he is not targeting her. Retrospectively, in fact.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
They are not. Bryant has written an entire book suggesting Parliamentary reforms - this is one if them.
No doubt the government will try that line.
@Icarus made a comment below from the FT that shows you are wrong:
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
It's difficult to see how you can say he is not targeting her. Retrospectively, in fact.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Not averse to that, but we have set the precedent that Sinn Fein MPs who don't attend but do constituency surgeries, don't get paid the MPs salary.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Not averse to that, but we have set the precedent that Sinn Fein MPs who don't attend but do constituency surgeries, don't get paid the MPs salary.
That's a very good point. But AFAICR they *do* get expenses.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Problem there is, the only place Nads is more conspicuously absent than HoC is her constituency
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Not averse to that, but we have set the precedent that Sinn Fein MPs who don't attend but do constituency surgeries, don't get paid the MPs salary.
That's a very good point. But AFAICR they *do* get expenses.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Not averse to that, but we have set the precedent that Sinn Fein MPs who don't attend but do constituency surgeries, don't get paid the MPs salary.
That's a very good point. But AFAICR they *do* get expenses.
They do, but that reinforces the point that constituency work is not the job, any more than driving a car clocking up a mileage claim is.
It's a very glossy campaign more suited to an actual election than a candidate selection. Izzard appears to be aiming over the heads of the local party members, which I think could well backfire. https://www.eddieizzard.uk/
If Labour select Izzard as their PPC I'm calling Pavilion as a Green hold because (1) many Brightonians are Londoners-in-exile who don't regard Sian Berry as a carpet bagger; (2) Ms Berry is an engaging and plausible successor to Caroline Lucas; and (3) feminists would rather vote for a real woman than a grotesque parody.
OT Sweden vs USA in the Women's World Cup on ITV at the moment. England are currently favourites from Spain. I'm starting to think Japan might win it.
On footy, I still can't see why Coventry are 5/1 today away at Leicester KO 1200. The M69 Derby is a feisty one, albeit not played for 10 years or so. I would think evens fair odds considering how Coventry only narrowly missed out on promotion in the playoff final and Leicester are at best a team in transition, with no reliable goalscorer.
Off shortly, so hope I am wrong and that it is a comfortable victory for us.
Foxy's money has moved the market. Coventry now a best-priced 4/1.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
"What happens when it rains, viewcode?" "My go-bag gets wet" "And...?" "I have to take the books out..." "...and why is that?" "Because books get wet and bloom and get mouldy if they re left in the bag?" "CORRECTAMUNDO!"
Absolute archetypal Cheshire Gap weather on the Met Office last 6 hour radar at the moment. An organised band of rain running in south-eastwards off the Irish Sea since this morning has driven through Birmingham and is now causing showers ias far as West London.
Ironically, Manchester often escapes a lot of this weather, as today.
Russia launched 67 drones/missiles at Ukraine last night (thankfully 85% were shot down)
It gives every sign of NOT running out of ordnance
They haven't launched that many for quite a while. It is a reaction to the damaging of the Russian warship yesterday. If Russia had lots of stocks of missiles they would be doing it every day. They don't.
Russia launched 67 drones/missiles at Ukraine last night (thankfully 85% were shot down)
It gives every sign of NOT running out of ordnance
They haven't launched that many for quite a while. It is a reaction to the damaging of the Russian warship yesterday. If Russia had lots of stocks of missiles they would be doing it every day. They don't.
The position seems to be: they do not have an unlimited supply, but nor are they “running out” - as was predicted on here multiple times last year. “Two weeks supply left” etc
The head of GCHQ told us they were about to run out last October. If he doesn't have a fucking clue then who does?
What was his exact quote, and which class of weapon did it refer to? This quote about today's attack said "67 drones/missiles", and we know that Russia is getting lots of drones from Iran and possibly others.
The rate at which the Russians are launching missiles corresponds quite well to their estimated production rates.
So either they have used up their stockpile, or they are restricting their strikes to the production rate to preserve a stockpile.
Eddie Izzard is - or was - a fantastic comedian, and probably a great bloke
But he makes a crap tranny. He looks like a guy wearing bad lipstick. Is he even trying to look female? Or is the mere act of dressing female that makes him happy? True transvestism perhaps
Absolute archetypal Cheshire Gap weather on the Met Office last 6 hour radar at the moment. An organised band of rain running in south-eastwards off the Irish Sea since this morning has driven through Birmingham and is now causing showers ias far as West London.
Ironically, Manchester often escapes a lot of this weather, as today.
Our weather would be much more interesting if we could just enhance the topography everywhere by a multiple of 3 or so. So the Cheshire gap would be a proper gap between 3,000m high glaciated mountains in Snowdonia and a 2,000m forest of Bowland and high peak, and London and the far South East would be rain shadow semi-deserts in the lee of the 1,000m high Chilterns and North downs.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
Both of the two leading in the betting for Ru'glen are criticising SKS as Kid Starver. Yes, including the Slab candidate.
Not in the least surprised.
If the SNP "campaigning from the left" forces Starmer to drop the the vindictive and utterly counterproductive two child cap - good! We need progressives to be actually progressive.
One opportunity is for these cheap modular buildings to disrupt the Uk housebuilding industry. Not the Ilke Homes £200k per dwelling modular buildings - but the £20k modular structures based on static caravans which seem similar to that set out in the link above. I think that - if properly maintained - they can last indefinetly. The 'missing' 7 million houses that we have failed to build could be replaced by this type of modular bungalow. I think they could also be quite easily adapted to provide boklok style maisonettes stacked on top of each other to save space. If you CPO the land and sideline the long list of inevitable objections then you can sort the housing issues in the UK out in one electoral cycle.
UK 1944-48 did it too (to some extent). The prefabs of that time came in different varieties, to be sure, but the good ones were much loved (some still are).
The problem isn’t the building houses.
You can buy agricultural land at £2.5k an acre in Marden. An hour out of central London.
Land with planning permission to build on. Just a tiny bit more
Eddie Izzard is - or was - a fantastic comedian, and probably a great bloke
But he makes a crap tranny. He looks like a guy wearing bad lipstick. Is he even trying to look female? Or is the mere act of dressing female that makes him happy? True transvestism perhaps
Will Brighton Pavilion be the only genuinely marginal contest between Labour and a party that's not either Tory or SNP at the next election? I doubt Bristol West will be remotely competitive for the Greens. I'm trying to think of any Lab-Lib Dem marginals. Hallam is statistically marginal but Labour are polling much better now than in 2019. I don't think any of the current LD seats are Labour targets.
Absolute archetypal Cheshire Gap weather on the Met Office last 6 hour radar at the moment. An organised band of rain running in south-eastwards off the Irish Sea since this morning has driven through Birmingham and is now causing showers ias far as West London.
Ironically, Manchester often escapes a lot of this weather, as today.
Our weather would be much more interesting if we could just enhance the topography everywhere by a multiple of 3 or so. So the Cheshire gap would be a proper gap between 3,000m high glaciated mountains in Snowdonia and a 2,000m forest of Bowland and high peak, and London and the far South East would be rain shadow semi-deserts in the lee of the 1,000m high Chilterns and North downs.
Already get something ofr that in Lothian - rain shadow of the hills. The eastern coastal plain is fairly dry , e.g. Dunbar used to market itself as the driest resort in Scotland. Its rainfall is 600mm pa which compares with Skeggy at 761 and Sandown at 745. Which are barely drier (contrary to myth) than Aberdeen at [edit] 753.
One opportunity is for these cheap modular buildings to disrupt the Uk housebuilding industry. Not the Ilke Homes £200k per dwelling modular buildings - but the £20k modular structures based on static caravans which seem similar to that set out in the link above. I think that - if properly maintained - they can last indefinetly. The 'missing' 7 million houses that we have failed to build could be replaced by this type of modular bungalow. I think they could also be quite easily adapted to provide boklok style maisonettes stacked on top of each other to save space. If you CPO the land and sideline the long list of inevitable objections then you can sort the housing issues in the UK out in one electoral cycle.
UK 1944-48 did it too (to some extent). The prefabs of that time came in different varieties, to be sure, but the good ones were much loved (some still are).
The problem isn’t the building houses.
You can buy agricultural land at £2.5k an acre in Marden. An hour out of central London.
Land with planning permission to build on. Just a tiny bit more
Eddie Izzard is - or was - a fantastic comedian, and probably a great bloke
But he makes a crap tranny. He looks like a guy wearing bad lipstick. Is he even trying to look female? Or is the mere act of dressing female that makes him happy? True transvestism perhaps
Eddie Izzard was always a crossdresser and very much accepted as such. He still appears to be a crossdresser - he describes himself as currently 'doing the girl thing', which hardly indicates a burning desire to stop being male, but it seems such people must now claim to *be* women, or become deeply unfashionable uncle toms.
Absolute archetypal Cheshire Gap weather on the Met Office last 6 hour radar at the moment. An organised band of rain running in south-eastwards off the Irish Sea since this morning has driven through Birmingham and is now causing showers ias far as West London.
Ironically, Manchester often escapes a lot of this weather, as today.
Our weather would be much more interesting if we could just enhance the topography everywhere by a multiple of 3 or so. So the Cheshire gap would be a proper gap between 3,000m high glaciated mountains in Snowdonia and a 2,000m forest of Bowland and high peak, and London and the far South East would be rain shadow semi-deserts in the lee of the 1,000m high Chilterns and North downs.
Already get something ofr that in Lothian - rain shadow of the hills. The eastern coastal plain is fairly dry , e.g. Dunbar used to market itself as the driest resort in Scotland. Its rainfall is 600mm pa which compares with Skeggy at 761 and Sandown at 745. Which are barely drier (contrary to myth) than Aberdeen at [edit] 753.
Now imagine if the Cairngorms were 4,000m high with vast glaciers on their North East Flanks. Aberdeenshire would be like Patagonia.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
A sad day for the pioneers of the dog-drawn mg.
The taller dog is surely asking for trouble? Unless it has evolved some sort of interrupter gear.
Eddie Izzard is - or was - a fantastic comedian, and probably a great bloke
But he makes a crap tranny. He looks like a guy wearing bad lipstick. Is he even trying to look female? Or is the mere act of dressing female that makes him happy? True transvestism perhaps
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
A sad day for the pioneers of the dog-drawn mg.
Contemporary painting - decidedly ambiguous. Is Toutou going to get put down?
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Problem there is, the only place Nads is more conspicuously absent than HoC is her constituency
Indeed, and I am not defending her on that. Her time as an MP has not improved the country or her constituency as far as I'm concerned. But she is far from the only MP that that has applied to. Or probably even currently applies to.
I am looking forward to her leaving parliament, along with her mate Jacob Rees-Worm. But this is not the way to do it.
I'm getting the sense that we may be entering a downward phase in the Tory media cycle after a weirdly upbeat couple of weeks after the byelections. (It's testament to the power of man bites dog in journalism that the Uxbridge narrow hold generated far more positive publicity than the 2 catastrophic defeats elsewhere generated bad publicity).
If it's really going to be stop the boats week as the Jenrick interview and Yvette Cooper's tweets this morning suggest, then they are going to fade out on one aspect of culture wars where they stand a chance (motorists) and hone in on one where their record in government is appalling and their attempts to attack Starmer and lefty lawyers just look desperate.
I think attention will start turning to mortgages again soon too. People will be returning from summer holiday having exhausted savings and with back to school spending to do, and some will have new mortgage rates waiting for them. A few will have faced annoying queues which they'll blame, rightly or wrongly, on Brexit. They'll also have been in largely clean and well-run looking countries, shining in the summer sunshine, and are often returning to a grey and tatty looking towns and cities. The weather does that unfortunately (though it's set to improve next week to be fair).
And just for completeness, dozens of international triathletes getting the squits in contaminated seawater off Sunderland is a timely reminder to voters of one of the most salient issues for the Lib Dems.
So I think Tory support may soften a bit for a couple of weeks now. Time for Labour to launch some positive campaigns. I actually think a concerted policy push on migration and asylum that looks competent and fair without being obviously "soft" could pay dividends for them.
Eddie Izzard is - or was - a fantastic comedian, and probably a great bloke
But he makes a crap tranny. He looks like a guy wearing bad lipstick. Is he even trying to look female? Or is the mere act of dressing female that makes him happy? True transvestism perhaps
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
A sad day for the pioneers of the dog-drawn mg.
The taller dog is surely asking for trouble? Unless it has evolved some sort of interrupter gear.
I think the MG was just lifted off and the tripod folded out for action. You can see the tripod on the cart - painted differently from the cart metalwork, which has a fixed clamp holding the barrel in position and preventing traverse. One couldn't operate a crew-served Maxim properly on the cart, anyway, with the wheels getting in the way.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Putting our hardworking precogs out of a job.
"Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way)"; the suggested equivalence is insane and you know it.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Problem there is, the only place Nads is more conspicuously absent than HoC is her constituency
Indeed, and I am not defending her on that. Her time as an MP has not improved the country or her constituency as far as I'm concerned. But she is far from the only MP that that has applied to. Or probably even currently applies to.
I am looking forward to her leaving parliament, along with her mate Jacob Rees-Worm. But this is not the way to do it.
JRM losing his seat could be the salvation of the Tories after the election. Someone pointed out yesterday that he's the Corbyn of the Tories. This is a very good comparison. Loved by the grassroots, but perplexing and not entirely serious to the electorate. With him as leader Labour would be odds on for a second term.
Then again the other likely options aren't exactly thrilling. Mordaunt might be OK in a Teresa May kind of way. Badenoch has proved to be decidedly underwhelming. And God help them if they turn to a newly elected David Frost. He makes JRM seem like a serious politician.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
You think "must attend by such-and-such a date" implies a date in the past?
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Problem there is, the only place Nads is more conspicuously absent than HoC is her constituency
Indeed, and I am not defending her on that. Her time as an MP has not improved the country or her constituency as far as I'm concerned. But she is far from the only MP that that has applied to. Or probably even currently applies to.
I am looking forward to her leaving parliament, along with her mate Jacob Rees-Worm. But this is not the way to do it.
JRM losing his seat could be the salvation of the Tories after the election. Someone pointed out yesterday that he's the Corbyn of the Tories. This is a very good comparison. Loved by the grassroots, but perplexing and not entirely serious to the electorate. With him as leader Labour would be odds on for a second term.
Then again the other likely options aren't exactly thrilling. Mordaunt might be OK in a Teresa May kind of way. Badenoch has proved to be decidedly underwhelming. And God help them if they turn to a newly elected David Frost. He makes JRM seem like a serious politician.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
A sad day for the pioneers of the dog-drawn mg.
The taller dog is surely asking for trouble? Unless it has evolved some sort of interrupter gear.
I think the MG was just lifted off and the tripod folded out for action. You can see the tripod on the cart - painted differently from the cart metalwork, which has a fixed clamp holding the barrel in position and preventing traverse. One couldn't operate a crew-served Maxim properly on the cart, anyway, with the wheels getting in the way.
A more ad hoc version with mg ready to be lifted out with tripod in place, poor old single pooch doing the pulling though. Looks like a French Hotchkiss.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-66419292
"Labour insists it can clear the '13-year Tory backlog' of deportations"
"Fat Cats cash in on Cost of Living squeeze"
But he makes a crap tranny. He looks like a guy wearing bad lipstick. Is he even trying to look female? Or is the mere act of dressing female that makes him happy? True transvestism perhaps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erHmetqEnv8
https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1687901561282772992?t=mPWRr74JmZtBWAzBCZxkBQ&s=19
Give a person a target, give them a reason to fiddle figures. Sounds very familiar to me...
I highly doubt you’d end up at the front, but if you make them suspicious you could do a couple of nights in a nasty cold cell
And woe betide you if you ARE draft dodging. Not popular
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
https://www.eddieizzard.uk/
I don't get the impression that Bryant has Dorries high on his list of offenders against MP standards over the course of this Parliament.
Indeed, PB has a pro-Ukraine bias and is - to my mind - more eager to hear good news about the war - “Ukraine is winning” - than bad. And emotionally that’s understandable
It’s our job to weigh the “real” evidence, as best we can, absent emotion
As someone else said below, it'd been better if Bryant had targeted someone on his own team.
We have a whole profession dedicated to interpreting archaic wording in contemporary contexts, called lawyers.
The mentioning of other cases thing is a decision of the journalist writing the article, not the interviewee.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
If Bryant and his "team" had been gunning for Dorries, how did he manage to do an interview for the Guardian about his reform book without mentioning her at all?
if you read the quote from the FT you see that he says "it wouldn't be unreasonable" for Parliament to resurrect the 1801 rule. I'd go further than in my previous post, this reads as though the FT journalist asked Bryant about Dorries, and that Bryant would rather talk about other examples. The FT managed to get their quote so that they can run the story in the way that has you all riled up.
I hope you feel better soon.
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
There might be something in that. Taxis outside The Groucho at 2am are a romantic sight
However cars are also a pain and if it was pedestrianised all the restaurants and bars could expand on to the street, gloriously, year round. So I tend to agree with you
The Royal Mile in Edinburgh is protected with anti-terror gates during the fringe for this reason, with the added benefit for all the restaurants and street performers.
Off shortly, so hope I am wrong and that it is a comfortable victory for us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8NqUJaWC0c
He makes some good points, sadly...
Karl Jilg on how urban space is allocated
“research collated by City Hall shows international arrivals to the capital have surged this year and could end up being well ahead even of the record year of 2019.
Two million more international visitors are forecast to arrive in London in 2023, compared with last year, which is projected to produce an extra £674 million in revenue.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-tourism-visitors-economy-international-arrivals-summer-b1097836.html
Excellent news
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nadine-dorries-resignation-mp-where-hunt-fkpp26rfz
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents.
Not the same thing at all.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
"My go-bag gets wet"
"And...?"
"I have to take the books out..."
"...and why is that?"
"Because books get wet and bloom and get mouldy if they re left in the bag?"
"CORRECTAMUNDO!"
[Makes note to buy new copy of "Duty of Care"]
Ironically, Manchester often escapes a lot of this weather, as today.
So either they have used up their stockpile, or they are restricting their strikes to the production rate to preserve a stockpile.
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/suzy-eddie-izzard-sets-record-straight-on-names-and-pronouns-3451032
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Herstal
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1688129760394670080
You can buy agricultural land at £2.5k an acre in Marden. An hour out of central London.
Land with planning permission to build on. Just a tiny bit more
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
https://pictura-prints.com/product/antique-watercolour-drawing-dogcart-soldiers-belgian-army-f-poggi-c-1914/
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
I am looking forward to her leaving parliament, along with her mate Jacob Rees-Worm. But this is not the way to do it.
If it's really going to be stop the boats week as the Jenrick interview and Yvette Cooper's tweets this morning suggest, then they are going to fade out on one aspect of culture wars where they stand a chance (motorists) and hone in on one where their record in government is appalling and their attempts to attack Starmer and lefty lawyers just look desperate.
I think attention will start turning to mortgages again soon too. People will be returning from summer holiday having exhausted savings and with back to school spending to do, and some will have new mortgage rates waiting for them. A few will have faced annoying queues which they'll blame, rightly or wrongly, on Brexit. They'll also have been in largely clean and well-run looking countries, shining in the summer sunshine, and are often returning to a grey and tatty looking towns and cities. The weather does that unfortunately (though it's set to improve next week to be fair).
And just for completeness, dozens of international triathletes getting the squits in contaminated seawater off Sunderland is a timely reminder to voters of one of the most salient issues for the Lib Dems.
So I think Tory support may soften a bit for a couple of weeks now. Time for Labour to launch some positive campaigns. I actually think a concerted policy push on migration and asylum that looks competent and fair without being obviously "soft" could pay dividends for them.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
"Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way)"; the suggested equivalence is insane and you know it.
Then again the other likely options aren't exactly thrilling. Mordaunt might be OK in a Teresa May kind of way. Badenoch has proved to be decidedly underwhelming. And God help them if they turn to a newly elected David Frost. He makes JRM seem like a serious politician.
It's dire.