Betting on Lee Anderson to defect – politicalbetting.com

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, just had an image of Lee Anderson and Dame Andrea Jenkyns in the shower together.

Thought I'd share so we can set up a therapy group, sharing is caring after all.

I think, in this case, sharing is scaring. Or maybe scarring

Roger said:

I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

Corbynite twitter is pretty gung ho on him..

Theuniondivvie said:

Roger said:

I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

Corbynite twitter is pretty gung ho on him..

I was surprised to see he was odds on favourite.

Roger said:

I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

Ali is still the Labour candidate on the ballot.

Galloway may well still win but I don't see value at the current odds.

Alphabet_Soup said:

Ghedebrav said:

Surely 30p is the right bet?

Might be unwise to bet more than that either way, given that you could be betting against Anderson himself.

That seems to have been his career strategy in 2024.

Roger said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.

I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.

The ballot paper says Azhar Ali - Labour.

Dura_Ace said:

Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.

Suspect he will lose his seat though, esp if it is a bloodbath.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, just had an image of Lee Anderson and Dame Andrea Jenkyns in the shower together.

Thought I'd share so we can set up a therapy group, sharing is caring after all.

{puts on black cap}

For ye Fowle and Un-natural Crimes, ye are guilte…

Ye shall be taken from this Place to A Place of Incarceration… Con Home.. Piers Corbyn, Piers Morgan… Pineapple Pizza….

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

Dura_Ace said:

Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.

I would come to the same conclusion from the other way. Most politicians defect because they can longer stand being part of their original party. As Reform and the Conservatives are ideologically the same party, why defect?

One reason he may not have jumped straight to Reform is the dynamics. Had Anderson resigned the Tory whip, moving straight across would have been relatively easy and framed as a matter of principle or disillusion with Sunak or similar. However, to do so after being kicked out of the parliamentary party smacks of sour grapes. If it's going to happen, he and they will want to make it look as if it's in response to a better even than a disciplinary. The Budget is one possibility but there are plenty of others.

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

My stepsister got married by post, as one can do in certain US states, then had the party at the South Pole, where the couple were working, in mid-winter, when it is impossible to go in or out.

FF43 said:

Dura_Ace said:

Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.

I would come to the same conclusion from the other way. Most politicians defect because they can longer stand being part of their original party. As Reform and the Conservatives are ideologically the same party, why defect?

They are not though, are they? The Tories are traditonally much more centre right than what Reform represents, its just that at the moment a lot of the more moderate voices have left or were forced out over Brexit.

Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.

bondegezou said:

Roger said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.

I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.

The ballot paper says Azhar Ali - Labour.

That's strange.Starmer said he wouldn't be standing as a Labour candidate......I

Roger said:

bondegezou said:

Roger said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.

I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.

I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.

The ballot paper says Azhar Ali - Labour.

That's strange.Starmer said he wouldn't be standing as a Labour candidate......I

Ballot papers were printed before that happened.

Anabobazina said:

bondegezou said:

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

My stepsister got married by post, as one can do in certain US states, then had the party at the South Pole, where the couple were working, in mid-winter, when it is impossible to go in or out.

I bet she got a frosty reception.

It's cool man!

turbotubbs said:

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?

No, a registry office is not humanist.

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

It's like Lab all of a sudden SUPPORTING TAX HAVENS FOR THE WEALTHY because they think it might be electorally advantageous and we found out that the Shadow Health Secretary was being paid through an arms length SPV trust in the Cayman Islands.

Andy_JS said:

Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.

More crazed Tory copycatting of MAGA Republicans, see current case before SCOTUS re: social media.

CNN - Supreme Court questions Florida and Texas social media laws on First Amendment grounds
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html

JohnLilburne said:

turbotubbs said:

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?

My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.

I would have preferred a civil partnership to marriage, but they were not available to non-same-sex couples at the time.

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."

JohnLilburne said:

turbotubbs said:

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?

My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.

For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."

It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.

JohnLilburne said:

turbotubbs said:

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?

My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.

Isn't the only substantive legal difference between marriage and civil partnership different annulment rules? You can annul a marriage on non-consummation, but that's not a criterion for a civil partnership.

noneoftheabove said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

Absurd. Next week someone who advocated for more cycle paths drove a car shocker.

Someone who is a passionate and activist Green Party member drives a Porsche 911 GT3 RS.

Ahem.

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."

It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.

If we presume your sinew analysis is accurate, then, OK, if he benefitted from RTB, then maybe you might have a case that he was a hypocrite.

But we're talking about Angela Rayner, who doesn't oppose RTB and who is in a party whose policy is not to oppose RTB. Ergo, no hypocrisy.

JosiasJessop said:

"Christian Horner allegations: Red Bull team principal cleared of inappropriate behaviour"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68411597

They should strip Verstappen of all his titles.

No smoke without fire etc.

AlsoLei said:

Carnyx said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Presumably it's HMG denying the councils the use of the money for more houses that is the problem. But the Tories don't want to focus on that.

I believe that that's no longer the case - restrictions on doing so were partially lifted in 2008 and fully lifted by Eric Pickles in (I think...) 2012.

But 40 years of suppression destroyed so much productive capacity that the number of new starts is still way below where it needs to be.

Thanks. Quite so. (Scotland is rather different, of course, in other ways.)

It probably doesn't make much difference as, on the whole, the decent buys will have gone long before the rule change, and nobody in their right mind would buy the unsold leftovers. (Interesting question how many, if at all, of the leftovers are even worth buying in gentrifying areas as opposed to being scheduled for demolition.)

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

This seems very weak. I mean good you can argue against right to buy, and be upset that Labour have dropped their opposition to it. But I don't really see the hypocrisy.

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

Absurd. Next week someone who advocated for more cycle paths drove a car shocker.

Someone who is a passionate and activist Green Party member drives a Porsche 911 GT3 RS.

Ahem.

Can't see why that would be a problem in a party that is just fixated on woke shite.

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."

It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.

Might this be one of those cases where national policy is influenced by a single person's actions? It'd be hard to now ban right-to-buy whilst Rayner remains high-up within the party.

Is there anything left worth buying?

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."

It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.

If we presume your sinew analysis is accurate, then, OK, if he benefitted from RTB, then maybe you might have a case that he was a hypocrite.

But we're talking about Angela Rayner, who doesn't oppose RTB and who is in a party whose policy is not to oppose RTB. Ergo, no hypocrisy.

This isn't complicated. Angela Rayner took advantage of a discount, the likes of which she has accepted is iniquitous, to buy her council house and then flipped it afterwards for a profit.

Exactly the sort of behaviour that good Lab types should indulge in. I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason they support the policy is to shore up her flank as she knew she was otherwise exposed.

JohnLilburne said:

turbotubbs said:

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?

My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.

Agree, although ideally I wouldn't have started from here in the first place and made marriage nothing whatsoever to do with the State at all and be simply a personal thing (eg religious or personal commitment to one another in front of your God or family and friends). Sadly that is impossible because it is so deeply entangled in law (divorce, children, etc, etc) and taxation.

I have the same view (in most cases) of identifying your sex when these days it is irrelevant for most purposes. I think it is bizarre that you are asked for your sex on a multitude of forms where it simply is irrelevant and that for instance letters get addressed to Mr/Mrs/Ms but not to the Fat, Old White Person at 3 Acacia Ave. Why is one more relevant than the other descriptions?

AlsoLei said:

Taz said:

The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

Seriously, f**** off

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.

How does such a desirable place end up run by Lutfur Rahman?

AlsoLei said:

Taz said:

The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

Seriously, f**** off

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.

In the old days it was easy. You looked for the job ads and checked out which dairies had requirements for mid-upper turret gunners. Not so easy now, for the obvious reason, no milk floats. Maybe the reason for the confusion we see on PB today.

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

JohnLilburne said:

turbotubbs said:

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?

My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.

For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)

"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"

You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?

I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation

But they have. They're called civil marriages.

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.

In what way has she been hypocritical?

I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.

Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.

She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?

I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.

I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.

In what sense has she been hypocritical?

I ask again – simple question.

I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."

If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.

The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.

I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.

Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?

N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.

Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.

(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)

Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".

No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.

I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.

Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?

If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.

I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.

Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.

Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.

Where and when has she been hypocritical?

Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.

https://www.lgcplus.com/services/housing/shadow-housing-minister-we-need-to-turn-the-tap-off-on-right-to-buy-20-10-2022/

But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.

And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.

Where's a mural painter when you need one.

You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."

It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.

If we presume your sinew analysis is accurate, then, OK, if he benefitted from RTB, then maybe you might have a case that he was a hypocrite.

But we're talking about Angela Rayner, who doesn't oppose RTB and who is in a party whose policy is not to oppose RTB. Ergo, no hypocrisy.

This isn't complicated. Angela Rayner took advantage of a discount, the likes of which she has accepted is iniquitous, to buy her council house and then flipped it afterwards for a profit.

Exactly the sort of behaviour that good Lab types should indulge in. I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason they support the policy is to shore up her flank as she knew she was otherwise exposed.

Profit? Doesn't meet the smell test without knowing a lot more. Inflation accounts for a good chunk. The question is how much was spent on doing it up = improving the nation's housing stock. The sums in question are such that there might be no actual profit in real terms, maybe even a loss.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Andy_JS said:

Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.

More crazed Tory copycatting of MAGA Republicans, see current case before SCOTUS re: social media.

CNN - Supreme Court questions Florida and Texas social media laws on First Amendment grounds
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html

Actually Brianna Ghey's Mother is campaigning for it

Indeed my son who is in education and has 3 children supports the concept

JosiasJessop said:

On fear of an area:

Over the last few years I've run nearly every road and path within a large area surrounding my home (exc. motorways, obvs...) I've never once felt fearful from people I've seen or met. The runs are often at night or in the dark.

But some female friends *are* fearful of being on the streets at night, even within my town which is not exactly crime central. And the worst thing is, I cannot say they're wrong to feel fear. As a six-foot-two man, my experience of an area might be very different to that of a woman. A somewhat elderly male acquaintances also has some fears.

Fear may be rational or irrational; but the rationality is often very dependent on viewpoint and experience.

Of course. But also significantly dependent on news and informations sources, nowadays driven by news companies hyping fear to sell adverts, politicos seeking to divide us and apps like nextdoor futher re-enforcing incorrect beliefs about levels of crime.

williamglenn said:

AlsoLei said:

Taz said:

The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.

Seriously, f**** off

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-i-live-in-a-no-go-area-of-london-this-is-what-it-s-really-like/ar-BB1iY3OS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b4fca1599a684e429b2d4f70de4e00c7&ei=13

Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?

But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.

How does such a desirable place end up run by Lutfur Rahman?

What's that got to do with anything?

Also, several of you tragic fucks DOWNVOTED Rochdale’s 30p Lament, whereas @Rochdale himself took it well

Come on, who was it? @TheScreamingEagles? @bondegazou? @OnlyLivingBoy?

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

JohnLilburne said:

turbotubbs said:

SandyRentool said:

Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...

My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.

Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.

Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?

My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.

For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)

"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"

You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?

I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation

But they have. They're called civil marriages.

So still have the word 'marriage' in them then

So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.

Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".