The Tory party is the party for traitors – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
A quick scan of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parliaments_of_England suggests about 4 years, but I could easily have missed a longer one...kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.1 -
Changes His mind a lot, sadly.Casino_Royale said:
You simply know God is on your side.kle4 said:
I'm not sure it's much of a sincere belief in the former if you kill them to them to ignore the latter (or come up with convenient reasons why it does not apply)Casino_Royale said:
You couldn't get rid of the ruler of the day without an execution - if you believe in Divine Right and the hereditary principle the only way you can deliver regime change is through death.kle4 said:
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.3 -
I agree. In any other country he'd be in prison for treason.Nigel_Foremain said:
Which is an absurdity.HYUFD said:
Ironically you can't be a councillor in the UK if convicted and given a prison sentence of 3 months or more for 5 years (even if suspended) yet you can still be elected as an MP as long as you are not in prison when elected. This time next week the President of the USA, arguably the most powerful man in the world, will be a convicted felon of course tookle4 said:
The response would probably be should he get to be an MP, which maybe not, but there's a lots of other crimes people would feel the same way about, and so do you just prevent anyone with any offence standing as MP? As a mayor? As a councillor?tlg86 said:
Should he be allowed to work ever again?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think it is a safeguarding issue.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
If you were a female constituent or female member of staff at the Commons would you feel safe around him?
There's a reason why we allow people to find out if their partner has a record for domestic abuse.
Restrictions on Police and Crime Commissioners are, oddly, far more severe than seeking to become an MP.0 -
All power systems require sustaining by myths and fabricated legitimisation, of which 'divine right' is just one. But for most of us it is necessary and desirable to have an authority structure in place (see Thomas Hobbes for the most basic and brutal arguments as to why).kle4 said:
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
Looking at systems from before the very modern forms of democracy developed (forms which I think are magically wonderful, possessing their own myths and legends) you have to compare systems with the alternatives. In that light some sort of 'divine right' comes out not too badly, especially when ameliorated by occasional assassination, revolution and usurpation.2 -
So, one lot of criminals nick your stuff, and you pay "another" lot of criminals to get it back and they tell you the first lot got beaten up?Pagan2 said:
You don't need to be ross kemp to know criminals hell a lot of people here know mp's personallyCasino_Royale said:
Who are you?Pagan2 said:
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
Ross Kemp?
I have a bridge here, lightly used.0 -
Greens in second place, I suspect.HYUFD said:
The Tories were 2nd in Hampstead and Highgate at the GE, the LDs 4th, behind the Greens even if ahead of Reform who were 5th.rcs1000 said:
As City Minister rather than as MP, presumably.Big_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
A byelection in Hampstead and Highgate would be a near certain win for the LibDems, one would have thought.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001265
I would expect a narrow Labour hold if there is a by election2 -
At least you have your stuff back not just a crime number, I also trust the criminals I know far more than the police to be honestFlatlander said:
So, one lot of criminals nick your stuff, and you pay "another" lot of criminals to get it back and they tell you the first lot got beaten up?Pagan2 said:
You don't need to be ross kemp to know criminals hell a lot of people here know mp's personallyCasino_Royale said:
Who are you?Pagan2 said:
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
Ross Kemp?
I have a bridge here, lightly used.0 -
Oldie, but good (it won a Pulitzer) is Hofstadter’s The Age of Reform.Nigelb said:
West from Appomattox (Heather Cox Richardson) is a good book on the fifty years after the Civil War.Nigelb said:.
That’s a LOT of history.Cookie said:
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)Malmesbury said:
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.Malmesbury said:
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, I don't buy that.viewcode said:
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.williamglenn said:
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?Nigelb said:MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.
Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Chernow’s recent Grant biography isn’t a bad place to start.
Broad sweep, with an interesting unifying theme.
Takes you from 1890 - 1940.
Caro’s LBJ biographies, of course.
Anyone else care to chime in with their US history picks ?0 -
No it does not, in religious terms Cromwell was fanatical hardline Puritan evangelical, middle of the road was C of E or Lutheran at that time with Roman Catholicism the other extreme. King Charles I was more middle of the road religiously than Cromwell and even though his push for rule by divine right lost him his head, Cromwell effectively was a dictator by the time he died, hence the restoration with Charles IIkle4 said:
Nice Corbyn reference, but your ending makes the very point you refute, in that there were indeed more extreme people for the time.HYUFD said:
No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.Carnyx said:
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.HYUFD said:
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen wasCookie said:
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.kle4 said:
A generous interpretation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.Sean_F said:
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?kinabalu said:
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.JosiasJessop said:
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...Luckyguy1983 said:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.viewcode said:
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"williamglenn said:The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
Enjoy
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Democracy.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters
My recollection is the parliamentarians as a whole were not super popular though.
Edit: Then again, you thought the purge of the Long Parliament was inconsequential on the issue of whether there was 'parliamentary approval' for execution of the king, so I'll take the thoughts with a grain of salt, or wait for Starmer to purge all non-Labour MPs and see it argued 'parliament' approved things.0 -
As long as it doesn't encourage further burglarising, can't blame you.Pagan2 said:
At least you have your stuff back not just a crime number, I also trust the criminals I know far more than the police to be honestFlatlander said:
So, one lot of criminals nick your stuff, and you pay "another" lot of criminals to get it back and they tell you the first lot got beaten up?Pagan2 said:
You don't need to be ross kemp to know criminals hell a lot of people here know mp's personallyCasino_Royale said:
Who are you?Pagan2 said:
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
Ross Kemp?
I have a bridge here, lightly used.
Having said that, we had a whole army of plods chasing one perp around the neighbourhood last week. No helicopter strangely.
No idea what for but it must have been something worthwhile.0 -
Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.
0 -
What a weird thing for Starmer to say re Siddiq. “The door remains open”?
Why is he so terrible at this?1 -
Apparently he posted something about cheese on his socials and it upset someone with lactose intolerance.Flatlander said:
As long as it doesn't encourage further burglarising, can't blame you.Pagan2 said:
At least you have your stuff back not just a crime number, I also trust the criminals I know far more than the police to be honestFlatlander said:
So, one lot of criminals nick your stuff, and you pay "another" lot of criminals to get it back and they tell you the first lot got beaten up?Pagan2 said:
You don't need to be ross kemp to know criminals hell a lot of people here know mp's personallyCasino_Royale said:
Who are you?Pagan2 said:
This is why people like me go private if burgaled.. I get my stuff back the criminals get beaten up and its cheaper than the police
Ross Kemp?
I have a bridge here, lightly used.
Having said that, we had a whole army of plods chasing one perp around the neighbourhood last week. No helicopter strangely.
No idea what for but it must have been something worthwhile.3 -
The warnings were there through his years as LOTO...numbertwelve said:What a weird thing for Starmer to say re Siddiq. “The door remains open”?
Why is he so terrible at this?0 -
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Leaving aside Trump's felony conviction, plenty of able politicians have had criminal records. George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons.
Most senior French politicians of the 1990s and 2000s ended up with suspended sentences like Chirac or Sarkozy (as did Berlusconi in Italy) or even jail time in Fillon's case and Mitterand's son in law was involved in arms dealing whether he knew or not0 -
The US seceded and the Union grew, being divided into slave states (agricultural) and free states (industrial). As it grew each became afeared of the other and numerous compromises were tried until they went "fuck it" and the Southern states seceded. There was a civil war, the casualties were horrendous, the North freed the slaves and the South lost. The North ruled the South as an occupied power and forced Negroes into positions of authority such as the judiciary: this period was known as Reconstruction. But as the southern states had their votes restored, the temptation to use the new states as a power base was too much and the Democrats (who were pro racism) defeated the Republicans (anti-racism - things were far different then) and allowed the South to re-establish racial repression thru laws designed to repress Black people thru bureaucracy (these were known as Jim Crow) and organisations designed to oppress them via violence (eg the Klu Klux Klan, presenting as a pro-White organisation), resulting in a sullen and vicious statelet (the Solid South) with cruelty both large and small. This lasted until White disgust for the blatant racism, the utility of equality demonstrated by WW1 & 2, and the bravery of many Black people cumulated in the gradual loosening of such burdens post WW2, at which point the Republicans and the Solid South flipped again and became solid Republican. That brings us up to about 1980/1990 (bear in mind in 1976 Carter won Texas and Ford won California). The rest I think you can fill in for yourself from your own memories. 🙂Cookie said:
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)Malmesbury said:
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.Malmesbury said:
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, I don't buy that.viewcode said:
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.williamglenn said:
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?Nigelb said:MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.
Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era4 -
It takes months to reprogram his brain to speak different words. In the same we he kept on calling Rishi Sunak the Prime Minister when his 'despatch box' module was active, his 'resignation handling' module is programmed to come out with platitudes like that regardless of the individual case.numbertwelve said:What a weird thing for Starmer to say re Siddiq. “The door remains open”?
Why is he so terrible at this?2 -
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
0 -
Shouldn't that say 'England' rather than 'the UK?' That didn't exist until 1801 when the rules were rather different.rcs1000 said:
Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.1 -
Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.3 -
That is an excellent summary.viewcode said:
The US seceded and the Union grew, being divided into slave states (agricultural) and free states (industrial). As it grew each became afeared of the other and numerous compromises were tried until they went "fuck it" and the Southern states seceded. There was a civil war, the casualties were horrendous, the North freed the slaves and the South lost. The North ruled the South as an occupied power and forced Negroes into positions of authority such as the judiciary: this period was known as Reconstruction. But as the southern states had their votes restored, the temptation to use the new states as a power base was too much and the Democrats (who were pro racism) defeated the Republicans (anti-racism - things were far different then) and allowed the South to re-establish racial repression thru laws designed to repress Black people thru bureaucracy (these were known as Jim Crow) and organisations designed to oppress them via violence (eg the Klu Klux Klan, presenting as a pro-White organisation), resulting in a sullen and vicious statelet (the Solid South) with cruelty both large and small. This lasted until White disgust for the blatant racism, the utility of equality demonstrated by WW1 & 2, and the bravery of many Black people cumulated in the gradual loosening of such burdens post WW2, at which point the Republicans and the Solid South flipped again and became solid Republican. That brings us up to about 1980/1990 (bear in mind in 1976 Carter won Texas and Ford won California). The rest I think you can fill in for yourself from your own memories. 🙂Cookie said:
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)Malmesbury said:
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.Malmesbury said:
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, I don't buy that.viewcode said:
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.williamglenn said:
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?Nigelb said:MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.
Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era3 -
Starmer's majority is 163, not 239. No idea where he got that figure from.DavidL said:Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.
#pedanticbetting.com4 -
Well in 2011 voters had a chance to vote for AV, they only have themselves to blame they stuck with FPTP and governing parties elected on minority votesDavidL said:Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.0 -
Indeed.bigjohnowls said:
SKS had terrible taste in friendsAlanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
He used to hang out with Jeremy Corbyn, for example.2 -
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons0 -
I think the big boost to the Civil Rights movement in the USA in the Fifties and Sixties was the Cold War and Decolonisation.viewcode said:
The US seceded and the Union grew, being divided into slave states (agricultural) and free states (industrial). As it grew each became afeared of the other and numerous compromises were tried until they went "fuck it" and the Southern states seceded. There was a civil war, the casualties were horrendous, the North freed the slaves and the South lost. The North ruled the South as an occupied power and forced Negroes into positions of authority such as the judiciary: this period was known as Reconstruction. But as the southern states had their votes restored, the temptation to use the new states as a power base was too much and the Democrats (who were pro racism) defeated the Republicans (anti-racism - things were far different then) and allowed the South to re-establish racial repression thru laws designed to repress Black people thru bureaucracy (these were known as Jim Crow) and organisations designed to oppress them via violence (eg the Klu Klux Klan, presenting as a pro-White organisation), resulting in a sullen and vicious statelet (the Solid South) with cruelty both large and small. This lasted until White disgust for the blatant racism, the utility of equality demonstrated by WW1 & 2, and the bravery of many Black people cumulated in the gradual loosening of such burdens post WW2, at which point the Republicans and the Solid South flipped again and became solid Republican. That brings us up to about 1980/1990 (bear in mind in 1976 Carter won Texas and Ford won California). The rest I think you can fill in for yourself from your own memories. 🙂Cookie said:
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)Malmesbury said:
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.Malmesbury said:
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, I don't buy that.viewcode said:
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.williamglenn said:
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?Nigelb said:MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.
Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
Increasingly Communist propaganda in the newly independent world was about the injustice of racism, and the finger pointed strongly at the Jim Crow states of the USA.3 -
Is that Civil War film any good?0
-
Nah: it was merely the United Kingdom of England then - Mercia plus Wessex plus Northumbria, etc.ydoethur said:
Shouldn't that say 'England' rather than 'the UK?' That didn't exist until 1801 when the rules were rather different.rcs1000 said:
Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.0 -
Thank goodness he's not just using GPT to spit out copy. Which he's not. That would be lazy reader-fodder.ydoethur said:
Starmer's majority is 163, not 239. No idea where he got that figure from.DavidL said:Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.
#pedanticbetting.com0 -
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons1 -
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons1 -
I see.rcs1000 said:
Nah: it was merely the United Kingdom of England then - Mercia plus Wessex plus Northumbria, etc.ydoethur said:
Shouldn't that say 'England' rather than 'the UK?' That didn't exist until 1801 when the rules were rather different.rcs1000 said:
Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.
If we meant the whole area covered by the United Kingdom now, of course, we could include the lack of an Estates of Scotland from 1294 to 1315.0 -
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons0 -
Also at different times with different restrictions.ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons0 -
From the bits and pieces on YouTube I quite like it. Some Americans were upset by the implausible California -Texas alliance, and others were disappointed by the meandering plot - it's basically a series of vignettes about how War Is Bad. But I liked it for the fact that it has Apache helos and Abrams tanks shooting at a White House sentry post. The lack of partisan politics (the President's party is not disclosed) was not well received by many, but I think it was the only way it could go if you wanted to make a profit, which it did.Casino_Royale said:Is that Civil War film any good?
1 -
Medieval governments were usually solvent in peacetime. War was when expenditure went far beyond revenues, and they needed Parliamentary agreement to new taxes.rcs1000 said:
Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.
But, few really disputed that the king was the chief executive, and that, broadly, he should get his way, provided that he addressed the grievances that Parliament put before him.
0 -
I'm pretty good at spending money, and I call parliaments all sorts of things.kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
Does.... that make me the King?
Hurrah!
More spending!0 -
However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons0 -
May I make a disquieting suggestion: Once you have 'One Person One Vote' it isn't the job of leaders to solve or heal the problems of democracy. That's the job of the voters.DavidL said:Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.
(We recently had a referendum on slightly changing FPTP to soften its sharpest edge and give a slightly better chance to persistent newbies. We said said 'No. We shall stick where we are').0 -
By 'work' you mean having a post campaign drink and meal with Labour workers? Which is the most elastic definition of work I have ever seen!ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons2 -
I think he's more into crumpet in his office, although I understand that tends to be quite brief too.ohnotnow said:
However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons1 -
Inter campaign.HYUFD said:
By 'work' you mean having a post campaign drink and meal with Labour workers? Which is the most elastic definition of work I have ever seen!ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
Moreover, it was once. Johnson's was all the bloody time.
What was more disgraceful still was the claim from Michael Fabricating C*** that everyone else was doing it.0 -
Starmer wasn't at work it was an after work meal....the fact that arsehole politicians decided to exempt themselves from rules doesn't make it at work and if my work had an after work meal at the time we would of all been fined.ohnotnow said:
However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons0 -
C'mon you mighty Reds!
The Ghost of Brian Clough is stalking the City Ground. Fifty years since he joined.1 -
AV would still have given Starmer a landslide.HYUFD said:
Well in 2011 voters had a chance to vote for AV, they only have themselves to blame they stuck with FPTP and governing parties elected on minority votesDavidL said:Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.0 -
And once again we have all these arguments which completely miss the damn point.ydoethur said:
Inter campaign.HYUFD said:
By 'work' you mean having a post campaign drink and meal with Labour workers? Which is the most elastic definition of work I have ever seen!ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
Moreover, it was once. Johnson's was all the bloody time.
What was more disgraceful still was the claim from Michael Fabricating C*** that everyone else was doing it.0 -
Are you new here?Driver said:
And once again we have all these arguments which completely miss the damn point.ydoethur said:
Inter campaign.HYUFD said:
By 'work' you mean having a post campaign drink and meal with Labour workers? Which is the most elastic definition of work I have ever seen!ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
Moreover, it was once. Johnson's was all the bloody time.
What was more disgraceful still was the claim from Michael Fabricating C*** that everyone else was doing it.
3 -
Liverpool’s passing is as bad as I have seen it for a long timeMarqueeMark said:C'mon you mighty Reds!
The Ghost of Brian Clough is stalking the City Ground. Fifty years since he joined.0 -
Why does any idiot think a "strong government" is a good thing ffs! Naïve idiots. Please Lord, give us weak governments wthout big majorities!ohnotnow said:
Thank goodness he's not just using GPT to spit out copy. Which he's not. That would be lazy reader-fodder.ydoethur said:
Starmer's majority is 163, not 239. No idea where he got that figure from.DavidL said:Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.
#pedanticbetting.com0 -
Don't give Trump any more ideas.Sean_F said:
Medieval governments were usually solvent in peacetime. War was when expenditure went far beyond revenues, and they needed Parliamentary agreement to new taxes.rcs1000 said:
Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.
But, few really disputed that the king was the chief executive, and that, broadly, he should get his way, provided that he addressed the grievances that Parliament put before him.0 -
We've been halfway there for six years.Nigel_Foremain said:
Why does any idiot think a "strong government" is a good thing ffs! Naïve idiots. Please Lord, give us weak governments wthout big majorities!ohnotnow said:
Thank goodness he's not just using GPT to spit out copy. Which he's not. That would be lazy reader-fodder.ydoethur said:
Starmer's majority is 163, not 239. No idea where he got that figure from.DavidL said:Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.
#pedanticbetting.com
We've had the weak governments.
They've had big majorities, though.
And May perhaps suggests weak governments without big majorities have their drawbacks.0 -
Step back and think about every controversial incident involving Keir Starmer. What's the pattern? That Starmer is a lawyer so knows only that everything is strictly legal even if politically damn stupid. Every single time, right up to appointing an anti-corruption minister whose family is accused of corruption.Pagan2 said:
Starmer wasn't at work it was an after work meal....the fact that arsehole politicians decided to exempt themselves from rules doesn't make it at work and if my work had an after work meal at the time we would of all been fined.ohnotnow said:
However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
Now apply that to Currygate. Starmer is a lawyer so knew it was strictly legal even though the optics were bloody awful and it was politically damaging.
You might take the view that morally Starmer was in deeper than Boris but morals don't cut it, and Starmer knew he was innocent and Boris was guilty because that is what lawyers do for a living: they understand the rules.
And it came to pass that Starmer the lawyer was right and Boris was ousted and Starmer is in Number 10. And if you and Boris and ‘Dame’ Nadine Dorries think that's not fair, well, you might be right too but them's the rules.3 -
Finally Liverpool equalise 1-10
-
Behold America - Churchwell on 1920s/30s America - really interesting echos of MAGA and so on.Nigelb said:
Oldie, but good (it won a Pulitzer) is Hofstadter’s The Age of Reform.Nigelb said:
West from Appomattox (Heather Cox Richardson) is a good book on the fifty years after the Civil War.Nigelb said:.
That’s a LOT of history.Cookie said:
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)Malmesbury said:
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.Malmesbury said:
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, I don't buy that.viewcode said:
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.williamglenn said:
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?Nigelb said:MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.
Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Chernow’s recent Grant biography isn’t a bad place to start.
Broad sweep, with an interesting unifying theme.
Takes you from 1890 - 1940.
Caro’s LBJ biographies, of course.
Anyone else care to chime in with their US history picks ?0 -
I have no truck with boris and his ilk either.....what pisses me off is all mp's exempt them from the rules that govern the rest of usDecrepiterJohnL said:
Step back and think about every controversial incident involving Keir Starmer. What's the pattern? That Starmer is a lawyer so knows only that everything is strictly legal even if politically damn stupid. Every single time, right up to appointing an anti-corruption minister whose family is accused of corruption.Pagan2 said:
Starmer wasn't at work it was an after work meal....the fact that arsehole politicians decided to exempt themselves from rules doesn't make it at work and if my work had an after work meal at the time we would of all been fined.ohnotnow said:
However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
Now apply that to Currygate. Starmer is a lawyer so knew it was strictly legal even though the optics were bloody awful and it was politically damaging.
You might take the view that morally Starmer was in deeper than Boris but morals don't cut it, and Starmer knew he was innocent and Boris was guilty because that is what lawyers do for a living: they understand the rules.
And it came to pass that Starmer the lawyer was right and Boris was ousted and Starmer is in Number 10. And if you and Boris and ‘Dame’ Nadine Dorries think that's not fair, well, you might be right too but them's the rules.
for example I am living in devon and working in london as is my local mp
however if my company pays for a flat for me up there and my travel costs I get taxed as a benefit in kind...my mp gets it tax free. Fuck him and fuck the lot of them2 -
I am sure it isn't always true, but I think this gives you some idea of how it is mostly true:Casino_Royale said:
Meh, but I expect that isn't always the case and it's a Wokey/DEI take.kjh said:
I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'Casino_Royale said:
I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.Sean_F said:
Designed by Hugo Boss.glw said:
Next up new Army uniforms with very pointy hoods.Nigelb said:MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.
Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529
We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.
We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.
In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.
It's been used to justify every single one coming down which I don't agree with and, were I an American, would piss me off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_monuments_and_memorials#/media/File:Confederate_monuments,_schools_and_other_iconography_established_by_year.png
And some of them are f***ing big.
As I said I had the same view as you until I found this out. For me statues should stay even if not politically correct. I would rather see a statue to a slave owner with an explanation than take down the statue, but then you find out the motives behind most of them and it changes ones mind.0 -
Starmer was positively android-like when asked by Chris Mason about RR. Just switched on a monologue about fiscal rules or something. It was really, really weird.
We know politicians divert and obfuscate but this was bizarre.1 -
To be fair, I think the MP would say their office is in Devon and they get “sent” to London to work. If your office was in Devon, your work could pay to put you up in London when it sent you there.Pagan2 said:
I have no truck with boris and his ilk either.....what pisses me off is all mp's exempt them from the rules that govern the rest of usDecrepiterJohnL said:
Step back and think about every controversial incident involving Keir Starmer. What's the pattern? That Starmer is a lawyer so knows only that everything is strictly legal even if politically damn stupid. Every single time, right up to appointing an anti-corruption minister whose family is accused of corruption.Pagan2 said:
Starmer wasn't at work it was an after work meal....the fact that arsehole politicians decided to exempt themselves from rules doesn't make it at work and if my work had an after work meal at the time we would of all been fined.ohnotnow said:
However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
Now apply that to Currygate. Starmer is a lawyer so knew it was strictly legal even though the optics were bloody awful and it was politically damaging.
You might take the view that morally Starmer was in deeper than Boris but morals don't cut it, and Starmer knew he was innocent and Boris was guilty because that is what lawyers do for a living: they understand the rules.
And it came to pass that Starmer the lawyer was right and Boris was ousted and Starmer is in Number 10. And if you and Boris and ‘Dame’ Nadine Dorries think that's not fair, well, you might be right too but them's the rules.
for example I am living in devon and working in london as is my local mp
however if my company pays for a flat for me up there and my travel costs I get taxed as a benefit in kind...my mp gets it tax free. Fuck him and fuck the lot of them
0 -
He’s grieving for his lost Chagos deal.TOPPING said:Starmer was positively android-like when asked by Chris Mason about RR. Just switched on a monologue about fiscal rules or something. It was really, really weird.
We know politicians divert and obfuscate but this was bizarre.2 -
My local mp probably spends more time "working" in london I think if anyone has a claim to have a devon office its me as I spent two days in london last yearbiggles said:
To be fair, I think the MP would say their office is in Devon and they get “sent” to London to work. If your office was in Devon, your work could pay to put you up in London when it sent you there.Pagan2 said:
I have no truck with boris and his ilk either.....what pisses me off is all mp's exempt them from the rules that govern the rest of usDecrepiterJohnL said:
Step back and think about every controversial incident involving Keir Starmer. What's the pattern? That Starmer is a lawyer so knows only that everything is strictly legal even if politically damn stupid. Every single time, right up to appointing an anti-corruption minister whose family is accused of corruption.Pagan2 said:
Starmer wasn't at work it was an after work meal....the fact that arsehole politicians decided to exempt themselves from rules doesn't make it at work and if my work had an after work meal at the time we would of all been fined.ohnotnow said:
However "briefly received a cake in his office" is now my favourite phrase. I'm sure it wasn't the first time, either.ydoethur said:
Starmer was at work and Johnson wasn't, so one was legal and the other not?HYUFD said:
Boris was sitting having a drinl outside after work in a garden and briefly received a cake in his office. Starmer had a beer and curry with Labour workers. Spot the difference?OldKingCole said:
You probably think Boris Johnson was hard done by over the Covid prosecutions, whereas I think he was let off far too easily, as well.HYUFD said:
Well he should have been in my view even if he wasn'tOldKingCole said:
I thought that although some people claimed Starmer had breached Covid regulations the Police decided her hadn’t.HYUFD said:
No it should not at all. Either you believe in rehabilitation or your don't, if your conviction is spent let the voters decide.Nigel_Foremain said:
A criminal record should be a disbarment IMO. Old fashioned perhaps. Clearly Reform isn't that old fashioned after allHYUFD said:
His conviction is spent, he hasn't broken the law since he was elected, leave it to the voters. I suspect given current polls he will hold Basildon for Reform comfortably next time regardless.tlg86 said:
The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.Cookie said:
So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?TheScreamingEagles said:
Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper showsCookie said:
So was it her employer who pressed charges?TheScreamingEagles said:
From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.Cookie said:
So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.Cookie said:
Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.Alanbrooke said:
Louise Haigh Transport SecretaryCookie said:
Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.Alanbrooke said:
The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.Leon said:
And actually I wonder about ReevesAlanbrooke said:
Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austeritykinabalu said:
Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.Leon said:
Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all goodkinabalu said:
I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.Leon said:
Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge againkinabalu said:
No chance.Alanbrooke said:
Reeves nextBig_G_NorthWales said:Tulip Siddiq resigns
Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.
2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?
The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth
I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM
Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial
SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.
I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.
Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows
43% of MPs have criminal records apparently, he is not unusual, even if most didn't get a prison sentence like he did.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202204-09
Plenty of able politicians have had criminal records, George W Bush for drink driving, Ted Kennedy after his car crash killed his passenger, Julian Brazier after he collided with a motorcyclist on the wrong side of the road and killed him, even Sunak, Boris and Starmer breached some of the Covid rules and there are certain rumours about a Magistrates Court Appearance for a certain former New Labour PM in his youthful days of exuberance which he was convicted for on his middle name but shan't go into that too much for obvious reasons
Now apply that to Currygate. Starmer is a lawyer so knew it was strictly legal even though the optics were bloody awful and it was politically damaging.
You might take the view that morally Starmer was in deeper than Boris but morals don't cut it, and Starmer knew he was innocent and Boris was guilty because that is what lawyers do for a living: they understand the rules.
And it came to pass that Starmer the lawyer was right and Boris was ousted and Starmer is in Number 10. And if you and Boris and ‘Dame’ Nadine Dorries think that's not fair, well, you might be right too but them's the rules.
for example I am living in devon and working in london as is my local mp
however if my company pays for a flat for me up there and my travel costs I get taxed as a benefit in kind...my mp gets it tax free. Fuck him and fuck the lot of them0 -
Found my winner of the 'bonkers headline of the day' award: "Lazio falconer sacked for sharing explicit photos of prosthetic penis"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c30dp1r73e4o1 -
Maybe then, it certainly wouldn't nowDriver said:
AV would still have given Starmer a landslide.HYUFD said:
Well in 2011 voters had a chance to vote for AV, they only have themselves to blame they stuck with FPTP and governing parties elected on minority votesDavidL said:Interesting piece on Wings about the democratic mandate of our current government: https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-crisis-of-democracy/#more-148582
It contains these interesting statistics:
"Despite a landslide majority of 239, Keir Starmer’s victory last July was already the weakest and most democratically unbalanced in recorded British history. Labour’s seat count almost doubled – from 211 to 411 – even though their vote share only increased by a microscopic 1.6% from Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 annihilation and their actual real-numbers vote went DOWN by half a million."
I have long been a supporter of FPTP, mainly because it tends to give strong governments and rewards the plurality winner but you have to start to question whether it can work in a country where politics is becoming so fragmented. On this and the current polling the Rev says:
"On the full figures, just 18% of the electorate supports the governing party, compared to 25% who don’t know or won’t vote at all. If you add together the support of every party that’s ever been part of a UK government for the last 170 years – Lab, Con and Lib, and variants thereof – it still comes to a paltry 43%. Which is to say, a sizeable majority of the country now either supports nobody at all, or a party that’s NEVER been in government."
Our democracy is seriously sick. And the current leadership in all of the major parties seem ill placed to heal it.1 -
I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.
Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.0 -
@Casino_Royale I have only been dipping in and out tonight but I vaguely saw you ask about the Civil War film and was it any good. if you are referring to the one released last year then yes it is very good. In fact I thought it superb. However you need a strong stomach. It was very disturbing. I thought about it for weeks after and had to be scraped off the ceiling of the cinema a few times
The strong stomach was not so because of the violence, although there is quite a bit, but the nature of the film which is truly terrifying (plus I did jump a few times). They were very careful to not create a scenario that could be mistaken for Trump (California and Texas were on the same side), but boy I expect everyone was thinking Trump as they watched it.1 -
Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool0
-
I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.TOPPING said:I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.
Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.0 -
Ed Milliband persuaded him to throw his hat in the ring and go for St Pancras seat iirc.geoffw said:Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
0 -
Siddiq quits on Kate 'All Clear Day'.
Am I more cynical than a jaded flint knapper to think this was the day to try to bury the news as far as rightwing MSM front pages are concerned?
0 -
When Ed was leader? A notable judgement call by the silver tongued whisperer thenrottenborough said:
Ed Milliband persuaded him to throw his hat in the ring and go for St Pancras seat iirc.geoffw said:Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
1 -
That's what I mean. Really centrist dad. Look at you, you're the rabid Royalist of today.HYUFD said:
No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.Carnyx said:
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.HYUFD said:
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen wasCookie said:
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.kle4 said:
A generous interpretation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.Sean_F said:
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?kinabalu said:
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.JosiasJessop said:
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...Luckyguy1983 said:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.viewcode said:
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"williamglenn said:The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
Enjoy
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Democracy.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters0 -
Reeves just found some more headroom though.williamglenn said:
He’s grieving for his lost Chagos deal.TOPPING said:Starmer was positively android-like when asked by Chris Mason about RR. Just switched on a monologue about fiscal rules or something. It was really, really weird.
We know politicians divert and obfuscate but this was bizarre.0 -
He never said that to Louise Haigh. In the scheme of things, her conviction may well be more forgivable than what Siddiq is involved with.numbertwelve said:What a weird thing for Starmer to say re Siddiq. “The door remains open”?
Why is he so terrible at this?
Just that he likes Siddiq, as he is such a bad judge of character. As Michael Crick says, issues with Siddiq were pointed out all the way back to 2017 when it was clear the type of person she was.
Starmer is weak, based on his own arguments.1 -
The suggestion was that he fancied being AG for a few years - but then stuff happened.geoffw said:Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
Looking at his early career, he obviously does have a moral compass and sense of how things should be in the world; you can understand why politics might be appealing. And having led a significant organisation within the Justice world, that proximity to politics and experience of administration must have had an effect too.
But there's all the difference in the world between being a government law officer, or head of a pretty technocratic department, and party leader or PM.1 -
Like Rishi he thought that because he had a brilliant career outside politics, in law in his case, in finance in Rishi's, that automatically meant he would be good at politics. It doesn't.geoffw said:Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
Cameron was a far better politician than either, even if the peak of his non political career was Corporate Affairs Director at Carlton TV0 -
As statues are heavily concentrated in totalitarian regimes, I sense you are technically right that most statues are not there to give you the warm fuzzies. Bow down and commemorate your biggest bastards hard and long you woke, democratic softies.Luckyguy1983 said:
I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.TOPPING said:I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.
Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.0 -
Though as I pointed out last night, to turn around a Labour Party from it's worst defeat in years to a massive majority and 200 year record defeat for the Tories demonstrates real capability.geoffw said:
When Ed was leader? A notable judgement call by the silver tongued whisperer thenrottenborough said:
Ed Milliband persuaded him to throw his hat in the ring and go for St Pancras seat iirc.geoffw said:Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
Sure, you can only beat what the opposition put up, but nonetheless a major triumph.
Only the most complacent of PB Tories are counting him out.1 -
That’s an extremely naive view of the civil war statues.Luckyguy1983 said:
I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.TOPPING said:I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.
Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.1 -
So where do I find the statue of Hitler.Luckyguy1983 said:
I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.TOPPING said:I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.
Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.2 -
There must be one in India.TOPPING said:.
So where do I find the statue of Hitler.Luckyguy1983 said:
I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.TOPPING said:I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.
Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.0 -
I would generally agree with that. But that isn't the case with most of the Confederate statues which was the subject of the discussion. They were mostly put up in the Jim Crow era to intimidate blacks not to commemorate historically significant events or people. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the civil war. That was just an excuse. Just look at the graph I linked to in an earlier post. It was plain deliberate intimidation of the 'superior' whites over the 'inferior' blacks.Luckyguy1983 said:
I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.TOPPING said:I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.
Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.
It is no coincidence they were put up then and not earlier or later.
Genuine civil war statues I have no issue with in the context of the time (significant person or event).
PS Here is the link again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_monuments_and_memorials#/media/File:Confederate_monuments,_schools_and_other_iconography_established_by_year.png1 -
a
Start with the works of William Faulkner…Cookie said:
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)Malmesbury said:
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.Malmesbury said:
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, I don't buy that.viewcode said:
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.williamglenn said:
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?Nigelb said:MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.
Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
Balance with Booker T. Washington?1 -
You’ve got to put in a year, pretending to be on the shop floor, before they give you the foreman’s job…viewcode said:
Gap year.kle4 said:
Surprised she was slumming it making a go as an MP and junior minister with those family connections.JosiasJessop said:I read Tulip's wiki entry when the allegations first came out, and she really is an insider.
"As a child, she met Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton and Mother Teresa, and her family was invited to the White House"
"Her maternal grandfather is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding leader and first President of Bangladesh.[12] Her mother's elder sister, Sheikh Hasina, was Prime Minister of Bangladesh from 2009 until ousted in 2024."
"She has worked for Amnesty International, the Greater London Authority, at Philip Gould Associates, the political consultancy firm run by New Labour strategist Philip Gould, Save the Children, and Brunswick Group, where she worked on corporate social responsibility initiatives for major British manufacturers, as well as for MPs Oona King, Sadiq Khan and Harry Cohen. "
That may go to explain why there was not enough inquiry into her background.0 -
Come back to me when most centrist dads are fanatical low church republican evangelicals who back banning Christmas, dancing and going to the theatre like Cromwell didCarnyx said:
That's what I mean. Really centrist dad. Look at you, you're the rabid Royalist of today.HYUFD said:
No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.Carnyx said:
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.HYUFD said:
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen wasCookie said:
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.kle4 said:
A generous interpretation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.Sean_F said:
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?kinabalu said:
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.JosiasJessop said:
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...Luckyguy1983 said:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.viewcode said:
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"williamglenn said:The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
Enjoy
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Democracy.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters0 -
Judging by surveys taken during Covid that’s less centrist dad, more boomer grandad.HYUFD said:
Come back to me when most centrist dads are fanatical low church republican evangelicals who back banning Christmas, dancing and going to the theatre like Cromwell didCarnyx said:
That's what I mean. Really centrist dad. Look at you, you're the rabid Royalist of today.HYUFD said:
No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.Carnyx said:
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.HYUFD said:
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen wasCookie said:
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.kle4 said:
A generous interpretation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.Sean_F said:
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?kinabalu said:
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.JosiasJessop said:
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...Luckyguy1983 said:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.viewcode said:
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"williamglenn said:The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
Enjoy
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Democracy.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters1 -
If they did, they were quite right to do so - and the advantage of the western free world over communist states is that we can take such criticism and adapt and evolve to being a better form of ourselves by dealing with such injustices rather than denying them.Foxy said:
I think the big boost to the Civil Rights movement in the USA in the Fifties and Sixties was the Cold War and Decolonisation.viewcode said:
The US seceded and the Union grew, being divided into slave states (agricultural) and free states (industrial). As it grew each became afeared of the other and numerous compromises were tried until they went "fuck it" and the Southern states seceded. There was a civil war, the casualties were horrendous, the North freed the slaves and the South lost. The North ruled the South as an occupied power and forced Negroes into positions of authority such as the judiciary: this period was known as Reconstruction. But as the southern states had their votes restored, the temptation to use the new states as a power base was too much and the Democrats (who were pro racism) defeated the Republicans (anti-racism - things were far different then) and allowed the South to re-establish racial repression thru laws designed to repress Black people thru bureaucracy (these were known as Jim Crow) and organisations designed to oppress them via violence (eg the Klu Klux Klan, presenting as a pro-White organisation), resulting in a sullen and vicious statelet (the Solid South) with cruelty both large and small. This lasted until White disgust for the blatant racism, the utility of equality demonstrated by WW1 & 2, and the bravery of many Black people cumulated in the gradual loosening of such burdens post WW2, at which point the Republicans and the Solid South flipped again and became solid Republican. That brings us up to about 1980/1990 (bear in mind in 1976 Carter won Texas and Ford won California). The rest I think you can fill in for yourself from your own memories. 🙂Cookie said:
I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)Malmesbury said:
Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.Malmesbury said:
The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, I don't buy that.viewcode said:
They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.williamglenn said:
If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?Nigelb said:MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.
Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529
If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.
History is written by the victors.
Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
Increasingly Communist propaganda in the newly independent world was about the injustice of racism, and the finger pointed strongly at the Jim Crow states of the USA.
Our ability to be self-critical, and accept criticism from others, is our greatest strength not our weakness.0 -
No, monarchs ruled by Divine Right, In the medieval view.kle4 said:
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
If you overthrew and executed the King, that proved that God wanted to You to replace him.
Treason against God, never prospers….
Ruling without “advice” from the Great and The Good was a bit weird. Sign that you might be not God’s choice, frankly.0 -
Youguv rarely polls in Heaven…..kle4 said:
Changes His mind a lot, sadly.Casino_Royale said:
You simply know God is on your side.kle4 said:
I'm not sure it's much of a sincere belief in the former if you kill them to them to ignore the latter (or come up with convenient reasons why it does not apply)Casino_Royale said:
You couldn't get rid of the ruler of the day without an execution - if you believe in Divine Right and the hereditary principle the only way you can deliver regime change is through death.kle4 said:
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.0 -
"No 10 refuses to rule out emergency budget - as cabinet ministers warned 'things could get very difficult'"
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-starmer-ai-labour-tulip-siddiq-tories-latest-live-125933600 -
I'd guess that most people go into politics for one of two reasons, which can broadly be labelled as bragging rights or megalomania.geoffw said:Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
The bragging rights people are doing it to get one over someone else. See, for example, Boris Johnson's drive to get one over Cameron. I also suspected this was part of Sunak's motivation - it was the only thing his billionaire father-in-law couldn't buy. Definitely could be Starmer's motivation, the whole episode with the freebies shows that he's more status-obsessed than I'd previously appreciated.
The megalomaniacs are principally doing it because they don't think anyone else can, can be trusted, or is willing or able to do it. Who else is going to do it? You got that sense from Blair and Brown. It's certainly plausible that, as DPP, Starmer had a close enough view of how dysfunctional much of government could be that he felt someone had to sort it out, and, if not him, who?1 -
9 out of 10 angels support absolute autocracy and monarchy, after all that is the regime in heaven.Malmesbury said:
Youguv rarely polls in Heaven…..kle4 said:
Changes His mind a lot, sadly.Casino_Royale said:
You simply know God is on your side.kle4 said:
I'm not sure it's much of a sincere belief in the former if you kill them to them to ignore the latter (or come up with convenient reasons why it does not apply)Casino_Royale said:
You couldn't get rid of the ruler of the day without an execution - if you believe in Divine Right and the hereditary principle the only way you can deliver regime change is through death.kle4 said:
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
The other 1 is Satan, who has a good working relationship with the big guy, with them doing a bit of punting on poor old Job.0 -
Yeah but it’s a “Singapore-style” absolute autocracy.Foxy said:
9 out of 10 angels support absolute autocracy and monarchy, after all that is the regime in heaven.Malmesbury said:
Youguv rarely polls in Heaven…..kle4 said:
Changes His mind a lot, sadly.Casino_Royale said:
You simply know God is on your side.kle4 said:
I'm not sure it's much of a sincere belief in the former if you kill them to them to ignore the latter (or come up with convenient reasons why it does not apply)Casino_Royale said:
You couldn't get rid of the ruler of the day without an execution - if you believe in Divine Right and the hereditary principle the only way you can deliver regime change is through death.kle4 said:
The sheer number of rebellions against and even executions of medieval monarchs argues against the idea the power brokers of the time had a serious belief in divine right.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
Imagining a more convenient past constitutional settlement was a tactic of both sides centuries later of course.
The other 1 is Satan, who has a good working relationship with the big guy, with them doing a bit of punting on poor old Job.0 -
Cromwell didn't ban Christmas.HYUFD said:
Come back to me when most centrist dads are fanatical low church republican evangelicals who back banning Christmas, dancing and going to the theatre like Cromwell didCarnyx said:
That's what I mean. Really centrist dad. Look at you, you're the rabid Royalist of today.HYUFD said:
No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.Carnyx said:
Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.HYUFD said:
Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen wasCookie said:
No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.kle4 said:
A generous interpretation.TheScreamingEagles said:
Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.Sean_F said:
Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?kinabalu said:
But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.JosiasJessop said:
And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...Luckyguy1983 said:
Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.viewcode said:
Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"williamglenn said:The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.
The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
Enjoy
When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.
Democracy.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.
Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters
Cromwell was pally with the Independents, who were happy to let different congregations worship as they wished, provided they weren't non-Christians, or - gasp! - Papists.
It was the Presbyterians in Parliament who banned Christmas, before Cromwell became Lord Protector, and they definitely didn't like Independents. They wanted to impose a uniform Presbyterian Kirk on England.1 -
Or even Rommel.TOPPING said:
So where do I find the statue of Hitler.Luckyguy1983 said:
I haven't. Statues are put there to commemorate historically significant people and events, not to give you the warm fuzzies as you go and get your coffee.TOPPING said:I mean if I was a black bloke I would very much not like to walk past a statue of a racist slaver (are there any other kind) on my way to Starbucks each day. As a white bloke I don't like it either. We have all moved on get the statues down.
Churchill did more good than harm and there is a difference between having an unsavoury view of something and working to institute that view as a form of government.
Or German military bases named after Paulus…0 -
On Trump's tariffs. There are conflicting reports.
On the one hand, we hear from the premier of Alberta, that they expect the tariffs to apply across the board, to everything, no exceptions.
On the other hand, there are many who earnestly believe they will be targeted only on strategic industries, and leave something like Warhammer models without an additional tariff.
And in the middle you have cynical old rogues who expect it all to be a racket, where exceptions can be bought for a very reasonable consideration.
Where do we think this is headed?0 -
If you pay money to avoid a tariff, isn't that a tariff...LostPassword said:in the middle you have cynical old rogues who expect it all to be a racket, where exceptions can be bought for a very reasonable consideration.
1 -
March would only be an "emergency" budget because Reeves, with great flourish, announced that there would be only one full fiscal event per year and that would be in Autumn.Andy_JS said:"No 10 refuses to rule out emergency budget - as cabinet ministers warned 'things could get very difficult'"
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-starmer-ai-labour-tulip-siddiq-tories-latest-live-125933600 -
A bit cynical. I assume that most people go into politics because they want to improve the country.LostPassword said:
I'd guess that most people go into politics for one of two reasons, which can broadly be labelled as bragging rights or megalomania.geoffw said:Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
The bragging rights people are doing it to get one over someone else. See, for example, Boris Johnson's drive to get one over Cameron. I also suspected this was part of Sunak's motivation - it was the only thing his billionaire father-in-law couldn't buy. Definitely could be Starmer's motivation, the whole episode with the freebies shows that he's more status-obsessed than I'd previously appreciated.
The megalomaniacs are principally doing it because they don't think anyone else can, can be trusted, or is willing or able to do it. Who else is going to do it? You got that sense from Blair and Brown. It's certainly plausible that, as DPP, Starmer had a close enough view of how dysfunctional much of government could be that he felt someone had to sort it out, and, if not him, who?4 -
The last one.LostPassword said:On Trump's tariffs. There are conflicting reports.
On the one hand, we hear from the premier of Alberta, that they expect the tariffs to apply across the board, to everything, no exceptions.
On the other hand, there are many who earnestly believe they will be targeted only on strategic industries, and leave something like Warhammer models without an additional tariff.
And in the middle you have cynical old rogues who expect it all to be a racket, where exceptions can be bought for a very reasonable consideration.
Where do we think this is headed?1 -
We all want to improve the country, Andy. Of course we do. You'd have to be a nihilist or a sociopath not to want to.Andy_JS said:
A bit cynical. I assume that most people go into politics because they want to improve the country.LostPassword said:
I'd guess that most people go into politics for one of two reasons, which can broadly be labelled as bragging rights or megalomania.geoffw said:Why did Starmer get into politics? Did he think like Cameron that he had the talent for it, or was it just lust for power? He seems to be a latterday Widmerpool
The bragging rights people are doing it to get one over someone else. See, for example, Boris Johnson's drive to get one over Cameron. I also suspected this was part of Sunak's motivation - it was the only thing his billionaire father-in-law couldn't buy. Definitely could be Starmer's motivation, the whole episode with the freebies shows that he's more status-obsessed than I'd previously appreciated.
The megalomaniacs are principally doing it because they don't think anyone else can, can be trusted, or is willing or able to do it. Who else is going to do it? You got that sense from Blair and Brown. It's certainly plausible that, as DPP, Starmer had a close enough view of how dysfunctional much of government could be that he felt someone had to sort it out, and, if not him, who?
But most of us don't go into politics, and most of those who do go into politics don't get anywhere near the top.
So the relevant question is what marks those people out from everyone else. And I reckon it's either megalomania or status.0 -
Few Englanders know the differenceydoethur said:
Shouldn't that say 'England' rather than 'the UK?' That didn't exist until 1801 when the rules were rather different.rcs1000 said:
Before the reign of Charles I, the longest gap between parliaments in the UK occurred during the reign of Edward III, between 1327 and 1337. This ten-year period, often called the "Parliamentary Silence," is notable for the lack of parliamentary sessions due to Edward III's consolidation of power and financial independence through royal revenues and other means.kle4 said:
Kings are pretty good at spending money, so once they got into the habit of calling Parliaments it'd be interesting to know what the longest gap was until Charles I.rcs1000 said:
Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.Sean_F said:Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.
Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.
I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.
On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.
This long interval ended when Edward III called parliament in 1337 to secure funding for his military campaigns in France, marking the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. The gap highlights how medieval monarchs could rule without parliamentary consent when they were financially self-sufficient or politically strong.0
This discussion has been closed.