Skip to content

The correct answer is of course octopi – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,174
edited April 24 in General
The correct answer is of course octopi – politicalbetting.com

Full results for what Britons think are acceptable plural terms for octopus: https://t.co/xd0afmckQX

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599
    You can tell the sun is out and I've lost the energy to write a thread this afternoon but I promise the morning thread will be a banger with an awesome betting thrread.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,515
    FPT:

    FF43 said:

    murali_s said:

    Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.

    It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?

    I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.

    Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.

    There's a strange silence
    Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
    The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.

    And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
    Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
    It is treacherous sabotage. Not what you're doing - someone needs to do that well and safely. The policy.
    Don't be ridiculous. You could say the same about cutting ourselves off from the sm causing the loss of many sme and GDP.

    It's only an energy source for god sake. We are replacing it hand over fist.
    That's simply not true.

    Oil and gas are used for much more than just energy.

    Natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilizer, without which we would all starve.

    While oil is used in plastics, road surfaces, pharmaceuticals, and much more.
  • Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    FF43 said:

    murali_s said:

    Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.

    It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?

    I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.

    Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.

    There's a strange silence
    Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
    The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.

    And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
    Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
    It is treacherous sabotage. Not what you're doing - someone needs to do that well and safely. The policy.
    Don't be ridiculous. You could say the same about cutting ourselves off from the sm causing the loss of many sme and GDP.

    It's only an energy source for god sake. We are replacing it hand over fist.
    That's simply not true.

    Oil and gas are used for much more than just energy.

    Natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilizer, without which we would all starve.

    While oil is used in plastics, road surfaces, pharmaceuticals, and much more.
    Oil is an insanely useful product beyond mere burning it, anyone who thinks it is just burned and does not understand all the other things that come from it has a very weak grasp on chemistry, science and technology.

    Over 99% of medicines contain an oil product.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599
    edited April 24

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 28,791
    edited April 24

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.

    Even if the current form has far too many absurd "safeguards", they should just pass it unchanged and use the PA.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,961
    The correct answer is anyone but Starmer.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    edited April 24

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's a major change, if the support is there (and I believe it is), then it's time will come again and the drafters can cover off many of the listed objections, and I doubt the Lords would stop it again - they're allowed to do so (so the outrage at the idea of them doing so, rather than the specifics of why, are confected), but they know if they did it too often the Commons will indeed bypass.

    So I find the idea this was the one and only shot suggested in some quarters a bit bizarre.
  • Oil is an insanely useful product beyond mere burning it, anyone who thinks it is just burned and does not understand all the other things that come from it has a very weak grasp on chemistry, science and technology.

    Over 99% of medicines contain an oil product.

    There's a strong argument that using oil for fuel is the single worst thing to do with it.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,986
    It does have a Greek root and is thus clearly "octopodes". Likewise, "platypus"/"platypodes".

    By the way, while called the duck-billed platypus, the platypus's bill has a longer evolutionary history than that of ducks. They had their bills first. Thus, we should refer to the platypus and to the platypus-billed duck.
  • Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886
    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472
    Octopus = eight cats
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,986

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    I think I know everyone's answer as to who should deliver the message. Is it: someone else?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,838
    Fun fact: James Brolin was nearly the Bond in Octopussy. Roger Moore only agreed to come back at the last minute

    Here's one of his screen tests for it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjXilVYIxw
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 24

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    But what about the following the correct process in full.....while ensuring nothing hit his desk.

    As we found out this past week or so Starmer and #10 don't read the i, so no danger of him finding out about this plot.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    "Secret".

    I hope none of these folks are trying to conduct a clandestine relationship. They'll be sleeping in the car otherwise.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    CatMan said:

    Fun fact: James Brolin was nearly the Bond in Octopussy. Roger Moore only agreed to come back at the last minute

    Here's one of his screen tests for it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjXilVYIxw

    When are they going to decide on the new James Bond?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,434
    It's octopodes, the precedent being set by antipodes. Leaving the residual problem, solvable by Cantabrigienses, of the plural of tripod and tripos.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,193

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,434

    Surely it depends on how many of the animals we are talking about. Two octopuses should be referred to as hexadecipus, three octopus as icosaquadripus and so on.

    What is the Greek for 17 millepedes (or millepodes perhaps), one with four legs missing?

  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,838

    CatMan said:

    Fun fact: James Brolin was nearly the Bond in Octopussy. Roger Moore only agreed to come back at the last minute

    Here's one of his screen tests for it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjXilVYIxw

    When are they going to decide on the new James Bond?
    No idea! But...

    The film is positioned to be released in 2028, which indicates a shoot start of late 2026.

    Key actors speculated to be in the running include Callum Turner, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jacob Elordi. If chosen, Elordi would be the youngest and tallest Bond ever, as well as the second Australian to play him.

    Despite his recent Oscar-nominated role in Frankenstein, as well as his high-profile performance in Wuthering Heights, Elordi’s forthcoming schedule appears surprisingly clear.


    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/apr/16/james-bond-casting-announcement
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    edited April 24

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    I love that so much. Secret discussions. I think they just told him through that report.

    Best thing is whether it is true or not it drives the paranoia.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,554
    FTP
    maxh said:

    maxh said:

    Nigelb said:

    maxh said:

    Dopermean said:

    FF43 said:

    murali_s said:

    Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.

    It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?

    I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.

    Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.

    There's a strange silence
    Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
    Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
    If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.

    Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo
    As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.

    Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card.
    UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.

    You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
    (Snip)

    Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.

    (Snip)
    Is this assertion based on knowledge of the figures Richard? The figures I have heard is that solar power has increased 30% over the past year. (Source: https://energyadvicehub.org/uk-solar-generation-smashes-annual-records-as-capacity-and-sunshine-soar/)

    I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.

    There's no connection between the two things.
    The market for oil and gas is global; our renewables policies affect no one very much apart from us.

    The largest effect from discouraging UK oil and gas production is to our balance of payments and exchequer.

    maxh said:

    Dopermean said:

    FF43 said:

    murali_s said:

    Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.

    It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?

    I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.

    Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.

    There's a strange silence
    Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
    Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
    If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.

    Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo
    As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.

    Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card.
    UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.

    You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
    (Snip)

    Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.

    (Snip)
    Is this assertion based on knowledge of the figures Richard? The figures I have heard is that solar power has increased 30% over the past year. (Source: https://energyadvicehub.org/uk-solar-generation-smashes-annual-records-as-capacity-and-sunshine-soar/)

    I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.

    Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.

    Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.

    So solar would be smashing it in either case.
    Thanks both.

    Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.

    On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?

    I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
    The companies selling it, sell it on the world market, at the world market price.

    They have no generating capacity themselves.

    The generating companies buy gas at the world market price.

    The U.K. production, in any event, is not big enough to shift world prices (the U.K. benefit is taxes and jobs)

    So U.K. production of gas would have next to no effect on the decision of the generating companies to buy more solar.
    I'm with you on all of that.

    What about investment in future generation though?

    I can accept that the practical.answer may be that they just invest elsewhere in the world. But I am interested in whether we have figures to say that this is actually happening, rather than that the generating companies are switching investments towards renewable capacity in the UK.

    I take the point also about solar being so cheap, but then prima facie does that not making switching investments rather than removing them from UK more attractive?

    Apologies if I'm being dense!
    The oil and gas producing companies are investing in oil and gas elsewhere. Norway for example. Or in shutting down the North Sea - lots of work in that. For a while.

    Solar, in the U.K., is limited by planning. There is more money chasing projects that can happen.

    Perhaps the bit you are missing is that oil (in particular) is required to make a lot of things. This is the long tail of net zero.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,797

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    Oh my Lord above, it's Gordon Brown all over again. Everybody agrees he should go, nobody is willing to tell him. :open_mouth:
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    viewcode said:

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    Oh my Lord above, it's Gordon Brown all over again. Everybody agrees he should go, nobody is willing to tell him. :open_mouth:
    Who is going to be the wally with the banana this time?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 24
    kle4 said:

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    I love that so much. Secret discussions. I think they just told him through that report.

    Best thing is whether it is true or not it drives the paranoia.
    All the macho briefings of I will fight them to the death, come and have a go if you think you are hard enough while smearing Wes Streeting seem to have stopped these days.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    LOL
  • Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
    There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.

    But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.

    The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726

    viewcode said:

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    Oh my Lord above, it's Gordon Brown all over again. Everybody agrees he should go, nobody is willing to tell him. :open_mouth:
    Who is going to be the wally with the banana this time?
    As far as we know, at least Starmer isn't a phone thrower.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    It’s Octopodi according to Mark Kermode and Simon mayo when I used to listen to their show on five live
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,554

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    But what about the following the correct process in full.....while ensuring nothing hit his desk.

    As we found out this past week or so Starmer and #10 don't read the i, so no danger of him finding out about this plot.
    Shirley the way to do it, is to change the Labour Party constitution, and then change PM without telling Starmer?

    That way he can be very, very angry when finally notified *at* PMQs
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,694
    It's English, so the plural is octopuses.

    Alternatives are faux learned, and just sound wrong.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 24
    Taz said:

    It’s Octopodi according to Mark Kermode and Simon mayo when I used to listen to their show on five live

    Sad what their show has become now. Two blokes mostly from their back bedrooms phoning it in to very small audience. Used to be essential listening. I am not sure what went wrong there as just because you leave the BBC and go to podcast doesn't mean you lose your audience. The Whiny, i mean, News Agents being a good example.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    CatMan said:

    Fun fact: James Brolin was nearly the Bond in Octopussy. Roger Moore only agreed to come back at the last minute

    Here's one of his screen tests for it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjXilVYIxw

    Great theme tune
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,193

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
    There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.

    But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.

    The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
    That is not how our democracy works
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 28,791
    edited April 24

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
    There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.

    But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.

    The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
    That is not how our democracy works
    Yes, it is.

    If the elected House passes it again, the Parliament Act can apply.

    The Lords normally act more reasonable, but they have chosen not to this time. So the Commons should assert their primacy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    edited April 24

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
    There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.

    But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.

    The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
    That is not how our democracy works
    Well, technically it can work that way, just as the Lords can work to refuse to pass things the Commons wants.

    Whether either should do such things are trickier, and why both acts are rare, so they need to decide carefully.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,819

    You can tell the sun is out and I've lost the energy to write a thread this afternoon but I promise the morning thread will be a banger with an awesome betting thrread.

    On topic-ish:

    Did you hear about the Indian tennis player who simultaneously bet for and against himself?

    Vijay Arbritrage.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,797
    edited April 24
    CatMan said:

    Fun fact: James Brolin was nearly the Bond in Octopussy. Roger Moore only agreed to come back at the last minute

    Here's one of his screen tests for it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjXilVYIxw

    Bond screen tests
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828

    HYUFD said:

    Senedd Voting Intention:

    PLC: 29% (-1)
    RFM: 27% (-2)
    CON: 13% (+1)
    GRN: 11% (+2)
    LAB: 10% (-2)
    LDM: 6% (-1)

    Via
    @FindoutnowUK
    , 19-22 Apr.
    Changes w/ 16 Dec - 4 Jan.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2047659566326845805?s=20

    Labour 3% behind the Tories? In Wales???
    Possibly but it is FoN.
    Possibly - but it is FUN!
    Not really if it leads to an extreme right wing RefCon government in Wales. Not likely at the moment but it wouldn't take much.

    I am in a bit of a quandary. Will the RefCon government spend all our tax cash cash on flags of St George here in Wales as they have in the East and West Midlands?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,924
    On other matters I think someone needs to rein in Prince Harry with his faux royal tours. He’s gone and done a trip to Ukraine and a speech about something he’s no expert in and managed to piss off Trump (which in most ways isn’t bad but this isn’t right) and now the Russians are having a field day about how he dressed as a Nazi and is now helping his fellow “Nazi Ukrainians”.

    He doesn’t represent the country, the RF or the government and is too stupid to realise he adds nothing positive but is causing problems because of his ego and need to keep a high profile.

    Too many people don’t understand that he has no official standing and he will only cause more problems unless someone has a word and stops his grandstanding.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958

    FPT

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of Brexit and investment...

    Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.

    We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.

    Two or three things I think we can be fairly confident about Brexit:

    It has made us more divided and tribal
    It has lowered the standard of our political leaders and weakened our international partnerships

    The economic counter factuals really don't matter as however many formulas you put into the model, however much research you put into the inputs, it doesn't make the models true and won't convince diehards (or indeed reasonable peeps) on the other side.
    I thought it worth bringing this one over to the new thread as I agree with one part but not the other. And neither of them are really about Brexit.

    Yes I agree, we have become more divided and tribal. But I would argue tta actually it was the whole EU question rather than one specific answer which has done that. It is worth remembering that the country was already deeply divided about the question of EU membership and all the other associated issues long before 2016. The whole world has become more divided and tribal in the 21st century compared to the 50 years after WW2. Brexit was a symptom not a cause.

    And I think the standard of political leadership had already collapsed way back in the 90s. As I have said before Blair bears a great deal of responsibility for this as he turned political success from a measure of public service into a measure of personal and career achievement. For most high flying politicians of all parties, politics is no longer something you go into to give back to society it is something you go into for personal gain, either financial or reputational. That is where I lay the blame for the dire state of political discourse and ability these days.

    Again, as I have done before, I refer back to the Rest is History podcast where Dominic Sandbrooke this week was discussing the 1975 referendum. He points ot that the level of informed political and philosophical debate in that campaign is immeasureably better than what we saw in 2016 - from all sides. You can watch the debates on Youtube and whatever side you support you will be blown away by the level of erudition and intelligence on display from all the participants.
    There were ways of addressing the question of our relationship, and ways of Brexit-ing that wouldn't have caused such toxic division. That division has also destroyed the Conservative party, which whether one mostly agrees with it or not, had been the safe(ish), stable political government, mostly in charge, but we could always return to, for the prior half century.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    edited April 24
    If anyone has a few minutes and wants to watch a Freeman end up being jailed for 6 months I give you this court reporting.

    https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2026/954.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    boulay said:

    On other matters I think someone needs to rein in Prince Harry with his faux royal tours. He’s gone and done a trip to Ukraine and a speech about something he’s no expert in and managed to piss off Trump (which in most ways isn’t bad but this isn’t right) and now the Russians are having a field day about how he dressed as a Nazi and is now helping his fellow “Nazi Ukrainians”.

    He doesn’t represent the country, the RF or the government and is too stupid to realise he adds nothing positive but is causing problems because of his ego and need to keep a high profile.

    Too many people don’t understand that he has no official standing and he will only cause more problems unless someone has a word and stops his grandstanding.

    I assume he is happier not being a working royal, he seems to have a lot of anxieties and demons about his upbringing, but he still seems somewhat lost as to what he will do with his time.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,434
    Every element of why old fashioned liberals are in despair in here in this everyday story of how being gracious about people you disagree with gets you unpersonned and you have to revert to being a barbarian.

    Among the many sins against the light from this sinner was this abomination:

    She called for “generosity of spirit, a willingness to get into the grey area to talk about these things calmly”.



    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/24/kezia-dugdale-chair-stonewall-apologises-backlash-jk-rowling-remarks

  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195

    Taz said:

    It’s Octopodi according to Mark Kermode and Simon mayo when I used to listen to their show on five live

    Sad what their show has become now. Two blokes mostly from their back bedrooms phoning it in to very small audience. Used to be essential listening. I am not sure what went wrong there as just because you leave the BBC and go to podcast doesn't mean you lose your audience. The Whiny, i mean, News Agents being a good example.
    Agree completely. It’s a tragic decline. It used to be a must must listen for me and I’m not a film buff.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 24

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    But what about the following the correct process in full.....while ensuring nothing hit his desk.

    As we found out this past week or so Starmer and #10 don't read the i, so no danger of him finding out about this plot.
    Shirley the way to do it, is to change the Labour Party constitution, and then change PM without telling Starmer?

    That way he can be very, very angry when finally notified *at* PMQs
    Jonathan Pie bloke was on some podcast a new months back and second hand talking to people in #10, Starmer is apparently quite an odd bod. Sits in his office, virtually never comes out and talks to anybody, makes it clear no problems only solution are brought to him. He basically has 2 conversation topics, minute of the law and football. Even Sunak apparently would leave his spreadsheets from time to time and come out and chat to the staff about how things are going.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,819

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 24
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    It’s Octopodi according to Mark Kermode and Simon mayo when I used to listen to their show on five live

    Sad what their show has become now. Two blokes mostly from their back bedrooms phoning it in to very small audience. Used to be essential listening. I am not sure what went wrong there as just because you leave the BBC and go to podcast doesn't mean you lose your audience. The Whiny, i mean, News Agents being a good example.
    Agree completely. It’s a tragic decline. It used to be a must must listen for me and I’m not a film buff.
    I don't even really like films very much, rarely go to the cinema, but used to listen every week.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
    You've been corrected a million times, Sunil, some of them are 'Never-were's.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,535

    FPT

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of Brexit and investment...

    Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.

    We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.

    Two or three things I think we can be fairly confident about Brexit:

    It has made us more divided and tribal
    It has lowered the standard of our political leaders and weakened our international partnerships

    The economic counter factuals really don't matter as however many formulas you put into the model, however much research you put into the inputs, it doesn't make the models true and won't convince diehards (or indeed reasonable peeps) on the other side.
    I thought it worth bringing this one over to the new thread as I agree with one part but not the other. And neither of them are really about Brexit.

    Yes I agree, we have become more divided and tribal. But I would argue tta actually it was the whole EU question rather than one specific answer which has done that. It is worth remembering that the country was already deeply divided about the question of EU membership and all the other associated issues long before 2016. The whole world has become more divided and tribal in the 21st century compared to the 50 years after WW2. Brexit was a symptom not a cause.

    And I think the standard of political leadership had already collapsed way back in the 90s. As I have said before Blair bears a great deal of responsibility for this as he turned political success from a measure of public service into a measure of personal and career achievement. For most high flying politicians of all parties, politics is no longer something you go into to give back to society it is something you go into for personal gain, either financial or reputational. That is where I lay the blame for the dire state of political discourse and ability these days.

    Again, as I have done before, I refer back to the Rest is History podcast where Dominic Sandbrooke this week was discussing the 1975 referendum. He points ot that the level of informed political and philosophical debate in that campaign is immeasureably better than what we saw in 2016 - from all sides. You can watch the debates on Youtube and whatever side you support you will be blown away by the level of erudition and intelligence on display from all the participants.
    There were ways of addressing the question of our relationship, and ways of Brexit-ing that wouldn't have caused such toxic division. That division has also destroyed the Conservative party, which whether one mostly agrees with it or not, had been the safe(ish), stable political government, mostly in charge, but we could always return to, for the prior half century.
    I agree with you about the way it was done. But that is the responsibility of both sides and comes back to the fact we are ruled by pygmies.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    But what about the following the correct process in full.....while ensuring nothing hit his desk.

    As we found out this past week or so Starmer and #10 don't read the i, so no danger of him finding out about this plot.
    Shirley the way to do it, is to change the Labour Party constitution, and then change PM without telling Starmer?

    That way he can be very, very angry when finally notified *at* PMQs
    Jonathan Pie bloke was on some podcast a new months back and second hand talking to people in #10, Starmer is apparently quite an odd bod. Sits in his office, virtually never comes out and talks to anybody, makes it clear no problems only solution are brought to him. He basically has 2 conversation topics, minute of the law and football. Even Sunak apparently would leave his spreadsheets from time to time and come out and chat to the staff about how things are going.
    Starmer has been an incredible disappointment even to those of us who hoped he would try turning the Titanic around rather than keep on course for the heart of the iceberg.

    A massive wasted opportunity.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,797

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    But what about the following the correct process in full.....while ensuring nothing hit his desk.

    As we found out this past week or so Starmer and #10 don't read the i, so no danger of him finding out about this plot.
    Shirley the way to do it, is to change the Labour Party constitution, and then change PM without telling Starmer?

    That way he can be very, very angry when finally notified *at* PMQs
    Jonathan Pie bloke was on some podcast a new months back and second hand talking to people in #10, Starmer is apparently quite an odd bod. Sits in his office, virtually never comes out and talks to anybody, makes it clear no problems only solution are brought to him. He basically has 2 conversation topics, minute of the law and football. Even Sunak apparently would leave his spreadsheets from time to time and come out and chat to the staff about how things are going.
    I have this image of him sitting at his desk, quietly breathing, spine straight, hands placed flat on the edge of the desk, unmoving, eyes glowing red. The clock ticks in the background...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828
    tlg86 said:

    I am sure we have done this. It is a particular favourite of ours to call racist rapists out.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqxrzr29pxo

    Absolutely appalling. I would note that:

    At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.

    If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
    I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    It’s Octopodi according to Mark Kermode and Simon mayo when I used to listen to their show on five live

    Sad what their show has become now. Two blokes mostly from their back bedrooms phoning it in to very small audience. Used to be essential listening. I am not sure what went wrong there as just because you leave the BBC and go to podcast doesn't mean you lose your audience. The Whiny, i mean, News Agents being a good example.
    Agree completely. It’s a tragic decline. It used to be a must must listen for me and I’m not a film buff.
    I don't even really like films very much, rarely go to the cinema, but used to listen every week.
    Same here. I go more now I’m with my wife but back then when I listened to it I’d been to six films in 20 years, three being terrible dates 😢
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,661
    The only sensible, and therefore correct, plural is octopuses. Like circuses, choruses, viruses, campuses and styluses.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958

    FPT

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of Brexit and investment...

    Counter-factuals are really hard. Since 2016, when Britain voted to the Leave the EU, we've had a pandemic, a Boriswave, and war in Ukraine.

    We might have performed better in the EU. We might have performed worse. It's very hard to know for sure, because the biggest deteriminant of economic success are either (a) factors completely out of your control (see above), or (b) driven by domestic policy.

    Two or three things I think we can be fairly confident about Brexit:

    It has made us more divided and tribal
    It has lowered the standard of our political leaders and weakened our international partnerships

    The economic counter factuals really don't matter as however many formulas you put into the model, however much research you put into the inputs, it doesn't make the models true and won't convince diehards (or indeed reasonable peeps) on the other side.
    I thought it worth bringing this one over to the new thread as I agree with one part but not the other. And neither of them are really about Brexit.

    Yes I agree, we have become more divided and tribal. But I would argue tta actually it was the whole EU question rather than one specific answer which has done that. It is worth remembering that the country was already deeply divided about the question of EU membership and all the other associated issues long before 2016. The whole world has become more divided and tribal in the 21st century compared to the 50 years after WW2. Brexit was a symptom not a cause.

    And I think the standard of political leadership had already collapsed way back in the 90s. As I have said before Blair bears a great deal of responsibility for this as he turned political success from a measure of public service into a measure of personal and career achievement. For most high flying politicians of all parties, politics is no longer something you go into to give back to society it is something you go into for personal gain, either financial or reputational. That is where I lay the blame for the dire state of political discourse and ability these days.

    Again, as I have done before, I refer back to the Rest is History podcast where Dominic Sandbrooke this week was discussing the 1975 referendum. He points ot that the level of informed political and philosophical debate in that campaign is immeasureably better than what we saw in 2016 - from all sides. You can watch the debates on Youtube and whatever side you support you will be blown away by the level of erudition and intelligence on display from all the participants.
    There were ways of addressing the question of our relationship, and ways of Brexit-ing that wouldn't have caused such toxic division. That division has also destroyed the Conservative party, which whether one mostly agrees with it or not, had been the safe(ish), stable political government, mostly in charge, but we could always return to, for the prior half century.
    I agree with you about the way it was done. But that is the responsibility of both sides and comes back to the fact we are ruled by pygmies.
    I agree there is blame on all sides but imo it is not equal. The majority of the responsibility surely rests with the people who both advocated for change and were in power when the negotiations took place.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,420
    FF43 said:

    The only sensible, and therefore correct, plural is octopuses. Like circuses, choruses, viruses, campuses and styluses.

    But not cactuses.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,877

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    "Secret".

    I hope none of these folks are trying to conduct a clandestine relationship. They'll be sleeping in the car otherwise.
    As with any secret leaked to the press, it's hard to tell whether it's:
    a). what's happening
    b) what the leaker incorrectly thinks is happening
    c) what the leaker wants the journalist to think is happening
    d) what the leaker wants the journalist to think the leaker thinks is happening
    e) etc

    The trouble with journalism as stenography.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,661

    FF43 said:

    The only sensible, and therefore correct, plural is octopuses. Like circuses, choruses, viruses, campuses and styluses.

    But not cactuses.
    I'm OK with cactuses, but accept opinions may differ.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,866

    tlg86 said:

    I am sure we have done this. It is a particular favourite of ours to call racist rapists out.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqxrzr29pxo

    Absolutely appalling. I would note that:

    At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.

    If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
    I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
    No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,695
    Afternoon all :)

    Random late afternoon thoughts - a wonderful day for solar power generation.

    Mr Stodge Senior (the one with the Irish ancestry) was a long sitting and occasionally standing CAMRA member for whom the Halfway House at Brenchley was akin to Heaven - six cask ales at any one time. I took him there on many occasions - the food was very good.

    Another week sans oil flowing through Hormuz - WTI currently around $94 with Brent at $105. I wonder if this is the "new normal" for oil -I seem to recall in 1973 oil prices quadrupled (when the world was split between the superpowers the USA, USSR and OPEC) and OPEC didn't lose a single customer.

    The tube strikes have been effective but will we have another round next month? I couldn't get to Sandown this afternoon for the flat card - the jump card tomorrow isn't worth it. I suspect some sort of compromise will be hammered out before the next disputes.

    Will the Newham Independents be running the council a fortnight today? I sense Labour fighting back hard in the Borough but this is the toughest battle they've faced in decades.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    Toddler throws tantrum in the White House ...and it wasn't Donald for once.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/04/24/toddler-throws-tantrum-in-the-white-house/
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
    There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.

    But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.

    The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
    Nope. I am in favour of assisted dying - very strongly. But this bill was, please excuse the term, an abortion.

    If you listen to some of the Lords ex[plaining their objections you realise just how bad this bill was as it was presented to the Lords.

    For a start, being a Private Members Bill, it had none of the usual research and support work done in advance - green and white papers, proper consultations etc. It was brought to the Commons as a half arsed emotionally based attempt to get ssisted dying rather than a proper formulated plan for end of life care indcluiding an option for assisted dying.

    Then after it passed its second reading in the Commons it was changed with key protections being removed. This is not the same bill the Commons voted on, even before the Lords had had a chance to look at it.

    It stands as the largest and most complex private members bill ever put before the Lords and it needed proper scrutiny. All he more so because all the work which would normally be done in advance of a Government bill was missing.

    What we need is for a Government to do the right thing and introduce a proper bill which has been properly planned and reseached. Not some half arsed bit of legislation that relies on emotional blackmail to get it through.

    I think what we need is the Government to use this bill to kick off the green and white papers with consultations.

    And then in 3 years time when all that's been done an MP can introduce the bill again as a private member..
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,420
    edited April 24
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    It’s Octopodi according to Mark Kermode and Simon mayo when I used to listen to their show on five live

    Sad what their show has become now. Two blokes mostly from their back bedrooms phoning it in to very small audience. Used to be essential listening. I am not sure what went wrong there as just because you leave the BBC and go to podcast doesn't mean you lose your audience. The Whiny, i mean, News Agents being a good example.
    Agree completely. It’s a tragic decline. It used to be a must must listen for me and I’m not a film buff.
    Some things just whither away. It makes us Conservatives unduly sad.

    I was recently confronted with the closed Hilhead Nurseries near Totnes. Always a little ramshackle but lovely plants and a fine tearoom with superb cakes.

    I really felt it as a loss.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
    There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.

    But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.

    The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
    Nope. I am in favour of assisted dying - very strongly. But this bill was, please excuse the term, an abortion.

    If you listen to some of the Lords ex[plaining their objections you realise just how bad this bill was as it was presented to the Lords.

    For a start, being a Private Members Bill, it had none of the usual research and support work done in advance - green and white papers, proper consultations etc. It was brought to the Commons as a half arsed emotionally based attempt to get ssisted dying rather than a proper formulated plan for end of life care indcluiding an option for assisted dying.

    Then after it passed its second reading in the Commons it was changed with key protections being removed. This is not the same bill the Commons voted on, even before the Lords had had a chance to look at it.

    It stands as the largest and most complex private members bill ever put before the Lords and it needed proper scrutiny. All he more so because all the work which would normally be done in advance of a Government bill was missing.

    What we need is for a Government to do the right thing and introduce a proper bill which has been properly planned and reseached. Not some half arsed bit of legislation that relies on emotional blackmail to get it through.

    If it was the one and only shot to get it through that makes sense as a tactic, but though I'm an opponent of assisted dying I think there's sufficient support, notably cross-party support, in general society that it didn't need to be done in this way. A way which actually helped it get frustrated no less.

    It'll be back.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.

    Even if the current form has far too many absurd "safeguards", they should just pass it unchanged and use the PA.
    You seem to have an unhealthy interest in death of various forms. Are you an undertaker?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,542
    Aha ! Light reflief.

    It is, of course, Octopods - like peapod and cephalopod.

    The plural of cephalopod is cephalopods, and octopods literally ARE cephalopods.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924
    edited April 24

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    The elected Scottish Parliament also rejected assisted dying and MPs only passed it by less than 25 votes
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886
    Reform and Green supporters are the most opposed to the idea of making Tony Blair foreign secretary.

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/2047710420195033258
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,661
    55% of Americans say Trump mentally unfit for office according to Fox poll. How can he stay in office?

    https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mkagqnanfs2q
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 26,274

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    The Lords was doing its job. You do know don't you that the peer who put down the most amendments was one of the Bill's sponsors, Lord Falconer, and these were all to weaken - yes, read that again - weaken the safeguards the Commons had voted for.

    It failed because of the arrogance, stupidity and failure to listen to genuine concerns of its sponsors - and its appalling overreach. A bill to introduce something like what Switzerland has would likely have passed. A Bill which every single organisation from psychiatrists to care homes to palliative specialists to those knowledgeable about coercion to every single organisation representing the disabled to the former Head of the NHS said was unsafe and could not be supported is what doomed it. Rather than try to bully it through its proponents would do better to listen to the very genuine concerns and stop telling lies about what it means for the vulnerable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814

    Reform and Green supporters are the most opposed to the idea of making Tony Blair foreign secretary.

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/2047710420195033258

    Everyone should be. I know we were surprised by Cameron coming back into politics, but it isn't a good look for MPs just for a start.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924
    @Nigel_Farage
    The Falklands are and will always be British. 🇬🇧

    https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/2047668235240128720?s=20
  • Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    murali_s said:

    Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.

    It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?

    I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.

    Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.

    There's a strange silence
    Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
    The home grown supply of oil and gas is finite. It can be used just once. The only question is whether we take it all out of the ground as fast as possible, or at a much more measured pace while switching away to lean more on renewable and nuclear sources. If the latter, there will be more oil and gas left for future generations, at a point when you and I are pushing up the daisies and the planet might actually be able to cope with the more measured rate of use.

    And as those finite oil and gas supplies run out worldwide, such that the cost of extraction increases and prices are pushed up further due to limits on supply, the fact that fields such as Rosebank are available to bring onstream in 50 years time will make them far more valuable as a national resource then than they are now.
    Once we abandon fields they will never be re-opened. It is simply not practical. I know. I am responsible for abandoning them and take it from me we are making sure they are really well abandoned because that is the legal requirement.
    What’s your view on the Iranian blockade?

    The US narrative is that Kharg island fills up by next weekend, leaving Iran nowhere to store the stuff, so they have to start shutting down production in a way that could be permanent.
    Nah. Trump is talking out of his behind. You can keep wells shut in for years. If those wells are onshore then you can keep them shut in for decades. You lose nothing except a bit of cost from having someone monitor them every few months to make sure they are not leaking.

    It only becomes an issue when you want to permanently abandon them and they are 300 ft below the surface of the North Sea * Then you have to do a proper abandonment based on the highest possible recharge pressures over several thousand years. That means pulling casings, setting cement plugs and eventually cutting off wellheads and removing any infrastructure above the seabed. That is when it becomes irreversable.

    Nothing Trump is doing will reduce Iranian oil reserves or cost them anything beyond the immediate issue of being unable to sell their oil.

    *other seas and other depths are available.
    This kind of commentary is maybe the most rewarding thing about PB for me. Whatever the topic, someone will know more about it than me and be happy to share. Thanks !
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    eek said:

    If anyone has a few minutes and wants to watch a Freeman end up being jailed for 6 months I give you this court reporting.

    https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2026/954.html

    Youtube videos of FOM are always worth a watch. Don't spill your coffee over the keyboard though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    HYUFD said:

    @Nigel_Farage
    The Falklands are and will always be British. 🇬🇧

    https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/2047668235240128720?s=20

    Unless daddy says otherwise?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,554

    https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2047700154040332420

    Some of Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet are in secret discussions about the best time to tell the Prime Minister to quit and who should deliver the message, @theipaper can reveal

    But what about the following the correct process in full.....while ensuring nothing hit his desk.

    As we found out this past week or so Starmer and #10 don't read the i, so no danger of him finding out about this plot.
    Shirley the way to do it, is to change the Labour Party constitution, and then change PM without telling Starmer?

    That way he can be very, very angry when finally notified *at* PMQs
    Jonathan Pie bloke was on some podcast a new months back and second hand talking to people in #10, Starmer is apparently quite an odd bod. Sits in his office, virtually never comes out and talks to anybody, makes it clear no problems only solution are brought to him. He basically has 2 conversation topics, minute of the law and football. Even Sunak apparently would leave his spreadsheets from time to time and come out and chat to the staff about how things are going.
    If true that worse than Gordon Brown.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,515
    CatMan said:

    CatMan said:

    Fun fact: James Brolin was nearly the Bond in Octopussy. Roger Moore only agreed to come back at the last minute

    Here's one of his screen tests for it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjXilVYIxw

    When are they going to decide on the new James Bond?
    No idea! But...

    The film is positioned to be released in 2028, which indicates a shoot start of late 2026.

    Key actors speculated to be in the running include Callum Turner, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jacob Elordi. If chosen, Elordi would be the youngest and tallest Bond ever, as well as the second Australian to play him.

    Despite his recent Oscar-nominated role in Frankenstein, as well as his high-profile performance in Wuthering Heights, Elordi’s forthcoming schedule appears surprisingly clear.


    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/apr/16/james-bond-casting-announcement
    Why not Taran Egerton?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    FF43 said:

    55% of Americans say Trump mentally unfit for office according to Fox poll. How can he stay in office?

    https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mkagqnanfs2q

    The alternative has a fetish for sofas and thats one of his better points.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,542

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    Yes - the mass of amendments have been done by a very small number of people. One or two I can understand, because they are within groups who could suffer badly on the wrong end of a bad process, but some I have concerns about.

    There were 1200+ amendments put forwards. At the point when there were around 900, these were the scores on the doors:

    Seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward 617 amendments between them:

    Baroness Finlay of Llandaff 169
    Baroness Grey-Thompson 131
    Lord Carlile of Berriew 72
    Baroness Coffey 72
    Lord Sandhurst 68
    Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59
    Lord Moylan 46
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,220

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
    There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.

    But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.

    The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
    That is not how our democracy works
    Yes, it is.

    If the elected House passes it again, the Parliament Act can apply.

    The Lords normally act more reasonable, but they have chosen not to this time. So the Commons should assert their primacy.
    There's quite a good chance that the bill would be reintroduced in the form it left the Commons. It is being reported that there are already about 100 MPs willing to sign up for the ballot in order to put forward an unamended bill, possibly more, and any one of them only needs to end up in the top 5 or so in the ballot for the reintroduced bill to have a good chance of progressing.

    I also wonder whether more not less MPs might now be prepared to back the reintroduced bill too, given that it's become a matter of constitutional importance to ensure that the will of the Commons cannot be frustrated by procedural antics in the Lords.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,554
    Cyclefree said:

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    The Lords was doing its job. You do know don't you that the peer who put down the most amendments was one of the Bill's sponsors, Lord Falconer, and these were all to weaken - yes, read that again - weaken the safeguards the Commons had voted for.

    It failed because of the arrogance, stupidity and failure to listen to genuine concerns of its sponsors - and its appalling overreach. A bill to introduce something like what Switzerland has would likely have passed. A Bill which every single organisation from psychiatrists to care homes to palliative specialists to those knowledgeable about coercion to every single organisation representing the disabled to the former Head of the NHS said was unsafe and could not be supported is what doomed it. Rather than try to bully it through its proponents would do better to listen to the very genuine concerns and stop telling lies about what it means for the vulnerable.
    There is a deep aversion to doing what other countries do in the heart of The Machine in this country.

    See the reason why the U.K. pursued hydrogen peroxide for submarines (HMS Exploder and HMS Excruciator), torpedos, space launch and missiles. Long after the rest of the world decided that was insane.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,819

    Reform and Green supporters are the most opposed to the idea of making Tony Blair foreign secretary.

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/2047710420195033258

    Tony who??
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    MattW said:

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    Yes - the mass of amendments have been done by a very small number of people. One or two I can understand, because they are within groups who could suffer badly on the wrong end of a bad process, but some I have concerns about.

    There were 1200+ amendments put forwards. At the point when there were around 900, these were the scores on the doors:

    Seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward 617 amendments between them:

    Baroness Finlay of Llandaff 169
    Baroness Grey-Thompson 131
    Lord Carlile of Berriew 72
    Baroness Coffey 72
    Lord Sandhurst 68
    Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59
    Lord Moylan 46
    That does seem like an awful lot, and there were surely obstructionist amendments put up, but Baroness Finlay is an expert on palliative medicine, it doesn't seem surprising she would have a lot of very detailed thoughts about precise drafting.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958

    Reform and Green supporters are the most opposed to the idea of making Tony Blair foreign secretary.

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/2047710420195033258

    Fast track him for the US Ambassador role instead. What could go wrong?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,695
    Evening now all :)

    Wildly off-topic, I always thought the flour bombing of Roy Jenkins at East Ham Town Hall in 1975 was connected to the EEC Referendum campaign. There's a picture of him on the same platform as Willie Whitelaw and Jo Grimond during the Referendum campaign.

    Can you imagine it - a public meeting and three of the speakers are Whitelaw, Jenkins and Grimond, political titans all? Whatever you think of their politics, imagine them at a public meeting in their prime.

    Anyway, it turns out the flour bombing was much later in the year - in September 1975 - when Jenkins was at a Labour Party event in support of Reg Prentice who was the local MP at the time. He shared the platform with Prentice, Shirley Williams and Tom Jackson. Jackson was at the time General Secretary of the Post Office Workers' Union.

    I didn't realise until I did some research he had refused honours in the resignation lists of both Harold Wilson and James Callaghan.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    rcs1000 said:

    CatMan said:

    CatMan said:

    Fun fact: James Brolin was nearly the Bond in Octopussy. Roger Moore only agreed to come back at the last minute

    Here's one of his screen tests for it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjXilVYIxw

    When are they going to decide on the new James Bond?
    No idea! But...

    The film is positioned to be released in 2028, which indicates a shoot start of late 2026.

    Key actors speculated to be in the running include Callum Turner, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jacob Elordi. If chosen, Elordi would be the youngest and tallest Bond ever, as well as the second Australian to play him.

    Despite his recent Oscar-nominated role in Frankenstein, as well as his high-profile performance in Wuthering Heights, Elordi’s forthcoming schedule appears surprisingly clear.


    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/apr/16/james-bond-casting-announcement
    Why not Taran Egerton?
    Or even Theo James ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814

    Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.

    I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.

    Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.

    It's not passing the House in its current form.
    That is up to MPs.

    They voted for it last year. They should again.
    You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.

    Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
    MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.

    The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.

    But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
    I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
    There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.

    But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.

    The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
    That is not how our democracy works
    Yes, it is.

    If the elected House passes it again, the Parliament Act can apply.

    The Lords normally act more reasonable, but they have chosen not to this time. So the Commons should assert their primacy.
    There's quite a good chance that the bill would be reintroduced in the form it left the Commons. It is being reported that there are already about 100 MPs willing to sign up for the ballot in order to put forward an unamended bill, possibly more, and any one of them only needs to end up in the top 5 or so in the ballot for the reintroduced bill to have a good chance of progressing.

    I also wonder whether more not less MPs might now be prepared to back the reintroduced bill too, given that it's become a matter of constitutional importance to ensure that the will of the Commons cannot be frustrated by procedural antics in the Lords.
    The Lords is allowed to use those antics in certain circumstances. And the Commons is allowed to bypass them in certain circumstances.

    So I find the argument that there are matters of constitutional importance somewhat overblown, given one of the reasons the bill ran out of time was because of the chosen method of introduction enabling that more easily. It's been a classic case of arguing they shouldn't be allowed to do it (ie it's an outrage), instead of arguing they shouldn't have chosen to do it (ie it's frustrating and a mistake).

    For MPs who might struggle to think of a decent idea for a Private Members Bill, and not interested in wasting time on a no hoper, having a pact of them agreeing they will put it back up sounds like a smart strategy.
This discussion has been closed.