Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Might Trump be impeached after leaving office?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited July 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Might Trump be impeached after leaving office?

Obscure corners of the US constitution were made for delving into, particularly when they interact with a scenario which is not wholly implausible: in this case, a post-presidency impeachment.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,905
    Trump is not as young as he used to be but he has seemed recently to look a trifle unsteady on his pins, even when sitting (ie moving from standing to sitting).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    Interesting header - and I do hope these thoughts have reached a man who does indeed 'radiate insecurity'.

    And its not just Darroch Johnson wouldn't stand up for:

    Miss Symonds, 31, had allegedly been asked by her bosses to step down amid claims her performance was not up to scratch......Senior party officials asked her to quit last summer. They allegedly told her that if she did not agree to go she would face the sack.

    Sources said Miss Symonds recruited her lover to argue for her job. But one claimed his attempts were viewed by Tory chiefs as “a bit half-hearted”.


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-fought-save-partners-17859061
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292

    Trump is not as young as he used to be but he has seemed recently to look a trifle unsteady on his pins, even when sitting (ie moving from standing to sitting).

    There are fat men and old men. But there aren't many fat old men.

    The other leader whose health is raising questions is Merkel's - she doesn't look well.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    Asked about her handling of Brexit, Trump said: “I believe the prime minister has brought it to a very good point where something will take place in the not-too-distant future. I think she’s done a very good job.”

    Here’s what he said about May in a tweet on Monday: “I have been very critical about the way the U.K. and Prime Minister Theresa May handled Brexit. What a mess she and her representatives have created.”

    Both statements can’t be true. Darroch spoke what he saw as the truth, and for doing so, he’s out. Trump said what was most expedient or useful to him in the moment. He’s running for reelection.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/trumps-bullying-forces-uk-ambassador-resign/593668/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780
    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    rcs1000 said:


    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    That he was only "half-hearted" in defence of his girlfriend when she was facing the sack also speaks volumes.

    Boris is only interested in one person. Not his current girlfriend. Not his wife, nor his ex-wife, nor his "5 or 6" children. Only Boris.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080
    rcs1000 said:

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    He did back his man. Trump, not Sir Kim...
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,704
    Corbyn has great cause to thank Boris. The Darroch ructions have kept Panorama off the front pages. Is this the way it will be from now on?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    Good long read on Trump & how he responded to the "grab them by the pussy" tape:

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/10/american-carnage-excerpt-access-hollywood-tape-227269
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080

    Corbyn has great cause to thank Boris. The Darroch ructions have kept Panorama off the front pages. Is this the way it will be from now on?


  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,905

    Corbyn has great cause to thank Boris. The Darroch ructions have kept Panorama off the front pages. Is this the way it will be from now on?

    Yes, and not least because Boris's own history of race-baiting will restrain CCHQ from putting the boot in over Labour's antisemitism woes. Likewise with any claims of sexual harassment, bullying or even looking a bit scruffy.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,905
    This might make the news later today.

    MPs' staffers have been warned to expect "distressing and uncomfortable" revelations in a long-awaited report into Parliament's bullying and sexual harassment culture to be published Thursday.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9472771/mp-staffers-warned-bullying-sexual-harassment-report/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    Bloomberg Op-Ed:

    Trump simply fails to grasp this self-evident point. As with Canada and Mexico, Germany and Japan, the EU and NATO, the pattern keeps repeating. The president is blind to the fact that alliances aren’t merely obligations; they serve America’s interests, whether constraining China or resolving conflicts in the Middle East.

    The friendship between the U.K. and the U.S. will no doubt endure. It’s based not on the fixations of any one leader but on decades of shared values and interests. This rupture is hugely damaging nonetheless: Trump has managed to alienate America’s closest friend over a trifling spat, and gained nothing for it. “Uniquely dysfunctional” sums it up pretty well.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-10/darroch-resignation-highlights-trump-s-shameful-treatment-of-u-k
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    Downing Street has said the government will deliver on landmark House of Commons votes extending same-sex marriage and abortion rights to Northern Ireland, indicating Theresa May supports the principles of the backbench amendments, if not their methods.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/10/no-10-vows-deliver-landmark-northern-ireland-votes-same-sex-marriage-abortion
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 3,391
    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,704

    This might make the news later today.

    MPs' staffers have been warned to expect "distressing and uncomfortable" revelations in a long-awaited report into Parliament's bullying and sexual harassment culture to be published Thursday.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9472771/mp-staffers-warned-bullying-sexual-harassment-report/

    Will Bercow survive? Implications for the chances of No Deal if not...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292

    This might make the news later today.

    MPs' staffers have been warned to expect "distressing and uncomfortable" revelations in a long-awaited report into Parliament's bullying and sexual harassment culture to be published Thursday.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9472771/mp-staffers-warned-bullying-sexual-harassment-report/

    Just as well there's nothing else going on......

    None of the Government, MPs or Speaker’s office has been given an advance copy of the report, which will be published in the House of Commons at 10am tomorrow.

    But John Bercow and his staff are said to be “fearing the worst” from the report.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284

    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...

    I imagine it is annoying when people bring facts into the equation to spoil a good smear, whine on about cults to make yourself feel better.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,138
    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 3,391

    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...

    I imagine it is annoying when people bring facts into the equation to spoil a good smear, whine on about cults to make yourself feel better.
    No I get it. If only you can prove that a 100 year affiliate to the Labour Party is actually a proxy for Israel then you can prove the point that there really is an insidious Jewish plot against the Jeremy, the public will rise up against the Jew and Labour wins big. And then Israel gets overthrown and the Jews get expelled from Palestine - which is what full return rights for 2nd/3rd generation descendents of refugees means in practice. What's more, as JIM has been affiliated for 100 years that also means the Labour Party is tainted with the same Jewish plot and that means you can remove anyone who was a party member pre-2015.

    You don't see a basic political flaw with this strategy. Never mind a basic human decency flaw...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,905
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    It all sounds a bit unlikely given the ambassador was due to retire anyway later this year, and be replaced by a new ambassador. Probably someone has been spinning on the word replace. Why bring it forward, unless perhaps someone in Boris's camp had seen or even collated the stash of undiplomatic diptels?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch
    Well that's encouraging. Our future PM circumvents the FO Ambassadorial appointment process (advert, interviews, recommendation to the FS, recommended to the PM, recommended to HM) and tells a Mail journalist instead.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,138

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    It all sounds a bit unlikely given the ambassador was due to retire anyway later this year, and be replaced by a new ambassador. Probably someone has been spinning on the word replace. Why bring it forward, unless perhaps someone in Boris's camp had seen or even collated the stash of undiplomatic diptels?
    New CEOs (which is what the PM is) like to hit the ground running with their first 100 days (which might also be Boris's last 100 days!). So it wouldn't surprise me if he was thinking of making changes to the diplomatic team.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,138
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
    Do you not think Darroch's resignation in the wake of Boris becoming PM might not have provoked an angry reaction towards Boris?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284

    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...

    I imagine it is annoying when people bring facts into the equation to spoil a good smear, whine on about cults to make yourself feel better.
    No I get it. If only you can prove that a 100 year affiliate to the Labour Party is actually a proxy for Israel then you can prove the point that there really is an insidious Jewish plot against the Jeremy, the public will rise up against the Jew and Labour wins big. And then Israel gets overthrown and the Jews get expelled from Palestine - which is what full return rights for 2nd/3rd generation descendents of refugees means in practice. What's more, as JIM has been affiliated for 100 years that also means the Labour Party is tainted with the same Jewish plot and that means you can remove anyone who was a party member pre-2015.

    You don't see a basic political flaw with this strategy. Never mind a basic human decency flaw...
    Bla bla bla...

    I pointed out the one person on the program was an ex Israeli embassy employee, I realise as an angry centrist who keeps losing this is irritating so you have to create a grand conspiracy about what I really mean.

    Keep ranting if it makes you feel better, the facts stand however angry a response you make to them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    I think any post presidency impeachment exceedingly unlikely, whether Trump pardons himself or not.
    For a start, the political effort and capital expended would be enormous, and an incoming Democratic administration faces enormous tasks, given the commitments the candidates are talking about, any single one of which will take great effort to shepherd through Congress.
    In addition, the non-cooperation of the Republicans is almost guaranteed. While they are quite likely to abandon Trump, the last thing they will want to do is publicly rehearse at great length the details of how his malfeasance were enabled.

    And what all this overlooks is that there are likely to be numerous pending criminal charges against him at the state level, certainly including, but not limited to, the active investigation in the Southern District of New York. A presidential pardon does not touch these, and recent Supreme Court rulings suggest they will not fall foul of any double jeopardy challenge.

    Another four years in office would see Trump continue and likely accelerate his assault on an impartial justice system, but barring that, an incoming administration would have more important things to worry about.
  • eekeek Posts: 4,192
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
    Do you not think Darroch's resignation in the wake of Boris becoming PM might not have provoked an angry reaction towards Boris?
    There might have been a reaction but it wouldn't have been anything like this mess.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
    Do you not think Darroch's resignation in the wake of Boris becoming PM might not have provoked an angry reaction towards Boris?
    There might have been a reaction but it wouldn't have been anything like this mess.
    With his supporters "He'd decided to go before the debate" being called liars on Newsnight.....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
    Do you not think Darroch's resignation in the wake of Boris becoming PM might not have provoked an angry reaction towards Boris?
    By whom?

    Darroch would have chosen to fall on his sword, and Boris would have been publicly sorry that he chose to do so, although he quite understands his reasons.

    You always back your people in public, even if you curse them in private.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    This dispute is a good example of how the WTO is of little immediate practical help if someone decides to make trade difficult just to make a political point:
    http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201907100025.html
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,186
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
    Do you not think Darroch's resignation in the wake of Boris becoming PM might not have provoked an angry reaction towards Boris?
    By whom?

    Darroch would have chosen to fall on his sword, and Boris would have been publicly sorry that he chose to do so, although he quite understands his reasons.

    You always back your people in public, even if you curse them in private.
    To extent the football analogy, the problem is that too many people think they are on Team Brexit, not Team UK, and some of them think Trump is the star player.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
    Do you not think Darroch's resignation in the wake of Boris becoming PM might not have provoked an angry reaction towards Boris?
    By whom?

    Darroch would have chosen to fall on his sword, and Boris would have been publicly sorry that he chose to do so, although he quite understands his reasons.

    You always back your people in public, even if you curse them in private.
    To extent the football analogy, the problem is that too many people think they are on Team Brexit, not Team UK, and some of them think Trump is the star player.
    You do realise that not everything is about The Brexit, right?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,186
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
    Do you not think Darroch's resignation in the wake of Boris becoming PM might not have provoked an angry reaction towards Boris?
    By whom?

    Darroch would have chosen to fall on his sword, and Boris would have been publicly sorry that he chose to do so, although he quite understands his reasons.

    You always back your people in public, even if you curse them in private.
    To extent the football analogy, the problem is that too many people think they are on Team Brexit, not Team UK, and some of them think Trump is the star player.
    You do realise that not everything is about The Brexit, right?
    Not everything is, but the Kim Darroch incident certainly is.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    Resignation honours list coming up.....



    And it would be a lovely F.U. from Mrs May (who'd never say such a thing) to the Fat Fatuous Fathead
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,052
    Good morning, everyone.

    Miss Vance, Lord Darroch of Verity?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 600
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happens if 10 Tory MPs resign the whip following the announcement that Boris Johnson has been elected leader in 12 days' time?

    Then we likely get a VONC, a September general election and if Boris wins a majority he can then dispense with them
    So you believe that Theresa May will advise the Queen to appoint a prime minister who is from day 1 unable to govern.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,340

    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...

    I imagine it is annoying when people bring facts into the equation to spoil a good smear, whine on about cults to make yourself feel better.
    No I get it. If only you can prove that a 100 year affiliate to the Labour Party is actually a proxy for Israel then you can prove the point that there really is an insidious Jewish plot against the Jeremy, the public will rise up against the Jew and Labour wins big. And then Israel gets overthrown and the Jews get expelled from Palestine - which is what full return rights for 2nd/3rd generation descendents of refugees means in practice. What's more, as JIM has been affiliated for 100 years that also means the Labour Party is tainted with the same Jewish plot and that means you can remove anyone who was a party member pre-2015.

    You don't see a basic political flaw with this strategy. Never mind a basic human decency flaw...
    Bla bla bla...

    I pointed out the one person on the program was an ex Israeli embassy employee, I realise as an angry centrist who keeps losing this is irritating so you have to create a grand conspiracy about what I really mean.

    Keep ranting if it makes you feel better, the facts stand however angry a response you make to them.
    You seem to be implying that formerly working for the Israeli embassy invalidates the employee claim. You are sailing very closely to the claim of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour party.

    Would having a close Jewish friend, attending a Jewish wedding or having a holiday in Israel wreck a case. I watched a few minutes of the Eurovision Song Contest hosted by Israel this year. Does that make me just musically delinquent or an agent of Mossad ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883
    Scott_P said:
    If that's battery then I'm Charles Manson
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,340
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happens if 10 Tory MPs resign the whip following the announcement that Boris Johnson has been elected leader in 12 days' time?

    Then we likely get a VONC, a September general election and if Boris wins a majority he can then dispense with them
    So you believe that Theresa May will advise the Queen to appoint a prime minister who is from day 1 unable to govern.
    Yes.

    May will advise the Queen that presently Boris Johnson is best placed to secure the confidence of the House of Commons.

    How long that situation persists is an entirely different matter.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,138
    Just to pick up on the Fergie analogy. Yes, he did back his players, but only as long as they offered something to him. Just look at how it ended for Roy Keane to see how Fergie treated players he considered to be of no use to him.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,499
    The first edition of the telegraph last night was very different to the one being used in the paper reviews or did I imagine the front page that justified the lack of support and made Johnson out to be blameless?
  • eekeek Posts: 4,192
    JackW said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happens if 10 Tory MPs resign the whip following the announcement that Boris Johnson has been elected leader in 12 days' time?

    Then we likely get a VONC, a September general election and if Boris wins a majority he can then dispense with them
    So you believe that Theresa May will advise the Queen to appoint a prime minister who is from day 1 unable to govern.
    Yes.

    May will advise the Queen that presently Boris Johnson is best placed to secure the confidence of the House of Commons.

    How long that situation persists is an entirely different matter.
    That's only true until the DUP walk away or 2 MPs resign the Tory whip.

    If either of those occur what should May say?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,594
    Nigelb said:



    Another four years in office would see Trump continue and likely accelerate his assault on an impartial justice system, but barring that, an incoming administration would have more important things to worry about.

    He'll probably get another SC pick if he gets the second term. The actuarial odds on the Notorious RBG making it to 2024 must be slim.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,311
    Must be Mossad. No way Iran would do this. Right @TheJezziah ??
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284
    JackW said:

    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...

    I imagine it is annoying when people bring facts into the equation to spoil a good smear, whine on about cults to make yourself feel better.
    No I get it. If only you can prove that a 100 year affiliate to the Labour Party is actually a proxy for Israel then you can prove the point that there really is an insidious Jewish plot against the Jeremy, the public will rise up against the Jew and Labour wins big. And then Israel gets overthrown and the Jews get expelled from Palestine - which is what full return rights for 2nd/3rd generation descendents of refugees means in practice. What's more, as JIM has been affiliated for 100 years that also means the Labour Party is tainted with the same Jewish plot and that means you can remove anyone who was a party member pre-2015.

    You don't see a basic political flaw with this strategy. Never mind a basic human decency flaw...
    Bla bla bla...

    I pointed out the one person on the program was an ex Israeli embassy employee, I realise as an angry centrist who keeps losing this is irritating so you have to create a grand conspiracy about what I really mean.

    Keep ranting if it makes you feel better, the facts stand however angry a response you make to them.
    You seem to be implying that formerly working for the Israeli embassy invalidates the employee claim. You are sailing very closely to the claim of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour party.

    Would having a close Jewish friend, attending a Jewish wedding or having a holiday in Israel wreck a case. I watched a few minutes of the Eurovision Song Contest hosted by Israel this year. Does that make me just musically delinquent or an agent of Mossad ?
    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,340
    eek said:

    JackW said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happens if 10 Tory MPs resign the whip following the announcement that Boris Johnson has been elected leader in 12 days' time?

    Then we likely get a VONC, a September general election and if Boris wins a majority he can then dispense with them
    So you believe that Theresa May will advise the Queen to appoint a prime minister who is from day 1 unable to govern.
    Yes.

    May will advise the Queen that presently Boris Johnson is best placed to secure the confidence of the House of Commons.

    How long that situation persists is an entirely different matter.
    That's only true until the DUP walk away or 2 MPs resign the Tory whip.

    If either of those occur what should May say?
    The situation remains the same. A minority government without C&S is still the government and accordingly have a Prime Minister at the head.

    May remained PM in 2017 as did Heath and Wilson in 1974.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,311

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284

    Must be Mossad. No way Iran would do this. Right @TheJezziah ??
    If you want conspiracy theories try @RochdalePioneers, probably thinks Corbyn supporters did it to target Israel in the hope of distracting from Panorama and on the anniversary of some random Soviet Union or Maoist China event...

    The times probably thinks Corbyn planned it with his buddies in the KKK.

    John Ware thinks it was the Muslims.... In fairness broken clock syndrome has kicked in and it probably is actually some people who are Muslims.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
    His?

    I realise you are in a rush to criticise the Labour party but maybe look into things before you automatically attack, at least to maintain credibility when doing so....
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,556
    OT. Just watched the Panorama. That's what happens when you starve the BBC of cash. It was on a par with the Dispatches documentary Killing Lady Di backed by Al Feyed. It looked like it had been cobbled together by a 1st year media student for their end of year show. It was not investigative and it was not journaism. It was trying to prove a point.

    If the BBC want to maintain their position in the field of investigative journalism they'll have to do better than that. Decent documentaries involve a lot of research and they cost a lot of money. Getting an office junior to splice together a few bits of old news footage and then to interview a few people with a gripe accompanied by some library music entitled 'funerial' doesn't cut it and never will. 2/10
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,311

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
    His?

    I realise you are in a rush to criticise the Labour party but maybe look into things before you automatically attack, at least to maintain credibility when doing so....
    Are you assuming someones gender?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
    His?

    I realise you are in a rush to criticise the Labour party but maybe look into things before you automatically attack, at least to maintain credibility when doing so....
    Are you assuming someones gender?
    I am getting the feeling you don't know who we are talking about... this isn't much of a confusing subject for anyone else...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 19,063

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
    His?

    I realise you are in a rush to criticise the Labour party but maybe look into things before you automatically attack, at least to maintain credibility when doing so....
    Are you assuming someones gender?
    This is of course where Hebrew really scores - you can use gender neutral pronouns.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,311

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
    His?

    I realise you are in a rush to criticise the Labour party but maybe look into things before you automatically attack, at least to maintain credibility when doing so....
    Are you assuming someones gender?
    I am getting the feeling you don't know who we are talking about... this isn't much of a confusing subject for anyone else...
    Rubbish troll attempt.
  • eekeek Posts: 4,192
    JackW said:

    eek said:

    JackW said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happens if 10 Tory MPs resign the whip following the announcement that Boris Johnson has been elected leader in 12 days' time?

    Then we likely get a VONC, a September general election and if Boris wins a majority he can then dispense with them
    So you believe that Theresa May will advise the Queen to appoint a prime minister who is from day 1 unable to govern.
    Yes.

    May will advise the Queen that presently Boris Johnson is best placed to secure the confidence of the House of Commons.

    How long that situation persists is an entirely different matter.
    That's only true until the DUP walk away or 2 MPs resign the Tory whip.

    If either of those occur what should May say?
    The situation remains the same. A minority government without C&S is still the government and accordingly have a Prime Minister at the head.

    May remained PM in 2017 as did Heath and Wilson in 1974.
    So May would still nominate Boris as Corbyn asks the speaker for a VoNC..
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,955
    Roger said:

    OT. Just watched the Panorama. That's what happens when you starve the BBC of cash. It was on a par with the Dispatches documentary Killing Lady Di backed by Al Feyed. It looked like it had been cobbled together by a 1st year media student for their end of year show. It was not investigative and it was not journaism. It was trying to prove a point.

    If the BBC want to maintain their position in the field of investigative journalism they'll have to do better than that. Decent documentaries involve a lot of research and they cost a lot of money. Getting an office junior to splice together a few bits of old news footage and then to interview a few people with a gripe accompanied by some library music entitled 'funerial' doesn't cut it and never will. 2/10

    You could just say that people driven to nervous breakdowns and to the contemplation of suicide by the toxic working culture they were forced to endure have "a gripe", I guess. Or you could ask why things got to that point.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
    His?

    I realise you are in a rush to criticise the Labour party but maybe look into things before you automatically attack, at least to maintain credibility when doing so....
    Are you assuming someones gender?
    I am getting the feeling you don't know who we are talking about... this isn't much of a confusing subject for anyone else...
    Rubbish troll attempt.
    TBH if you can't even get basic facts right like gender when making accusations it does make them look less credible, not to everyone I guess but certainly to some.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,340

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Do you consider Israel to be anti-Semitic ? They self describe as "The Jewish State" and a proud to do so.

    You also imply that I'm an anti-Semitic Conservative voter. Wrong on both counts. The problem with Corbyn cultists is that you will brook no criticism of the Dear Leader even when fundamental weaknesses are evident. The project must not be derailed whatever the cost.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    Roger said:

    OT. Just watched the Panorama. That's what happens when you starve the BBC of cash. It was on a par with the Dispatches documentary Killing Lady Di backed by Al Feyed. It looked like it had been cobbled together by a 1st year media student for their end of year show. It was not investigative and it was not journaism. It was trying to prove a point.

    If the BBC want to maintain their position in the field of investigative journalism they'll have to do better than that. Decent documentaries involve a lot of research and they cost a lot of money. Getting an office junior to splice together a few bits of old news footage and then to interview a few people with a gripe accompanied by some library music entitled 'funerial' doesn't cut it and never will. 2/10

    The fact that so many ex employees offered such significant testimony is the key thing, I’d suggest? And the emails where Formby clearly interferes and then does her best to cover her tracks. Hasn’t her non-interference been asserted by Labour previously?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,704
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Having worked in finance, I know one of Alex Ferguson's sons reasonably well. Back when Mr Ferguson was running Manchester Utd, I heard why Alex Ferguson was trusted so much by his players.

    Simply, no matter what you did, he would back you in public. A stupid challenge? It was never a card, the referee must have been blind. A karate kick at a fan? Appalling provocation, the police should be involved.

    In the dressing room, it was another matter. Sir Alex might throw boots at you or scream at you. He would tell you what he really thought of your behaviour.

    But in front of the public: he always had your back, whether you were right or wrong.

    That's how Boris Johnson should have been. He could tell Sir Kim to resign in private. But in public, he has to back his man.

    That he did not, tells you much of the character of the man.

    According to Andrew Pierce, Johnson was going to move Darroch anyway (I mean, before the whole emails leaks thing). If true, Johnson was in a very difficult position. Had he backed him and then sacked him in three weeks time, Johnson would have been castigated.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    He should have backed Darroch in public, then told him privately to resign.

    Her Majesty's Government backs its soldiers and its diplomats in public. What it does in private is another matter altogether.
    Do you not think Darroch's resignation in the wake of Boris becoming PM might not have provoked an angry reaction towards Boris?
    By whom?

    Darroch would have chosen to fall on his sword, and Boris would have been publicly sorry that he chose to do so, although he quite understands his reasons.

    You always back your people in public, even if you curse them in private.
    To extent the football analogy, the problem is that too many people think they are on Team Brexit, not Team UK, and some of them think Trump is the star player.
    You do realise that not everything is about The Brexit, right?
    Indeed, but in a story broken by Isabel Oakeshott, it’s fair to believe that Brexit is involved somewhere along the line.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 19,063

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
    His?

    I realise you are in a rush to criticise the Labour party but maybe look into things before you automatically attack, at least to maintain credibility when doing so....
    Are you assuming someones gender?
    I am getting the feeling you don't know who we are talking about... this isn't much of a confusing subject for anyone else...
    Rubbish troll attempt.
    TBH if you can't even get basic facts right like gender when making accusations it does make them look less credible, not to everyone I guess but certainly to some.
    This dispute is giving a whole new meaning to the phrase 'he said/she said.'
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,340
    eek said:

    JackW said:

    eek said:

    JackW said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happens if 10 Tory MPs resign the whip following the announcement that Boris Johnson has been elected leader in 12 days' time?

    Then we likely get a VONC, a September general election and if Boris wins a majority he can then dispense with them
    So you believe that Theresa May will advise the Queen to appoint a prime minister who is from day 1 unable to govern.
    Yes.

    May will advise the Queen that presently Boris Johnson is best placed to secure the confidence of the House of Commons.

    How long that situation persists is an entirely different matter.
    That's only true until the DUP walk away or 2 MPs resign the Tory whip.

    If either of those occur what should May say?
    The situation remains the same. A minority government without C&S is still the government and accordingly have a Prime Minister at the head.

    May remained PM in 2017 as did Heath and Wilson in 1974.
    So May would still nominate Boris as Corbyn asks the speaker for a VoNC..
    Yes.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    Roger said:

    OT. Just watched the Panorama. That's what happens when you starve the BBC of cash. It was on a par with the Dispatches documentary Killing Lady Di backed by Al Feyed. It looked like it had been cobbled together by a 1st year media student for their end of year show. It was not investigative and it was not journaism. It was trying to prove a point.

    If the BBC want to maintain their position in the field of investigative journalism they'll have to do better than that. Decent documentaries involve a lot of research and they cost a lot of money. Getting an office junior to splice together a few bits of old news footage and then to interview a few people with a gripe accompanied by some library music entitled 'funerial' doesn't cut it and never will. 2/10

    I think Jezza will be happy with Panorama - he wants the 3m Muslim votes for the next election - and iif he has to get a bad rep for hating Jews to keep them onside well omelette and eggs etc...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 19,063
    JackW said:

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Do you consider Israel to be anti-Semitic ? They self describe as "The Jewish State" and a proud to do so.

    You also imply that I'm an anti-Semitic Conservative voter. Wrong on both counts. The problem with Corbyn cultists is that you will brook no criticism of the Dear Leader even when fundamental weaknesses are evident. The project must not be derailed whatever the cost.
    Your Grace's political opinions are of course underlined by your avatar.

    You are a great Whig.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,204
    tlg86 said:

    Just to pick up on the Fergie analogy. Yes, he did back his players, but only as long as they offered something to him. Just look at how it ended for Roy Keane to see how Fergie treated players he considered to be of no use to him.

    I definitely remember Fergie publicly criticizing Wayne Rooney. In general though I think most managers avoid public criticism of their own players, I think it's become part of the Fergie myth to some extent...

    It's probably easier to have loyal players when you're winning the title most years!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,955

    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...

    I imagine it is annoying when people bring facts into the equation to spoil a good smear, whine on about cults to make yourself feel better.
    No I get it. If only you can prove that a 100 year affiliate to the Labour Party is actually a proxy for Israel then you can prove the point that there really is an insidious Jewish plot against the Jeremy, the public will rise up against the Jew and Labour wins big. And then Israel gets overthrown and the Jews get expelled from Palestine - which is what full return rights for 2nd/3rd generation descendents of refugees means in practice. What's more, as JIM has been affiliated for 100 years that also means the Labour Party is tainted with the same Jewish plot and that means you can remove anyone who was a party member pre-2015.

    You don't see a basic political flaw with this strategy. Never mind a basic human decency flaw...
    Bla bla bla...

    I pointed out the one person on the program was an ex Israeli embassy employee, I realise as an angry centrist who keeps losing this is irritating so you have to create a grand conspiracy about what I really mean.

    Keep ranting if it makes you feel better, the facts stand however angry a response you make to them.

    The facts are that at least two Labour staff members suffered breakdowns as a result of a toxic working environment created by the party's leadership and that one of them was driven to contemplate suicide. That working environment was one which saw them consistently told they could not meaningful action against racists. Blah, blah, blah.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,311

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Using his links to Israel to dismiss his testimony about anti semitism is anti-semitic and just downright disgraceful to be honest.

    And stop this whataboutism. It’s moronic.
    His?

    I realise you are in a rush to criticise the Labour party but maybe look into things before you automatically attack, at least to maintain credibility when doing so....
    Are you assuming someones gender?
    I am getting the feeling you don't know who we are talking about... this isn't much of a confusing subject for anyone else...
    Rubbish troll attempt.
    TBH if you can't even get basic facts right like gender when making accusations it does make them look less credible, not to everyone I guess but certainly to some.
    That’s not very woke. No wonder the cool kids of Shoreditch no longer believe in Dear Leader.

    I also note the classic corbynista tactic of instead of discussing the actual point, it’s just a deflect, deflect, attack, attack.

    I can’t wait until your cult becomes a SWP irrelevance one again.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,955
    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    OT. Just watched the Panorama. That's what happens when you starve the BBC of cash. It was on a par with the Dispatches documentary Killing Lady Di backed by Al Feyed. It looked like it had been cobbled together by a 1st year media student for their end of year show. It was not investigative and it was not journaism. It was trying to prove a point.

    If the BBC want to maintain their position in the field of investigative journalism they'll have to do better than that. Decent documentaries involve a lot of research and they cost a lot of money. Getting an office junior to splice together a few bits of old news footage and then to interview a few people with a gripe accompanied by some library music entitled 'funerial' doesn't cut it and never will. 2/10

    I think Jezza will be happy with Panorama - he wants the 3m Muslim votes for the next election - and iif he has to get a bad rep for hating Jews to keep them onside well omelette and eggs etc...

    Your assumption that Muslims are anti-Semitic is as offensively grotesque as any assumption the far left makes about Jews.

  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,137
    edited July 11
    eek said:

    JackW said:

    eek said:

    JackW said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happens if 10 Tory MPs resign the whip following the announcement that Boris Johnson has been elected leader in 12 days' time?

    Then we likely get a VONC, a September general election and if Boris wins a majority he can then dispense with them
    So you believe that Theresa May will advise the Queen to appoint a prime minister who is from day 1 unable to govern.
    Yes.

    May will advise the Queen that presently Boris Johnson is best placed to secure the confidence of the House of Commons.

    How long that situation persists is an entirely different matter.
    That's only true until the DUP walk away or 2 MPs resign the Tory whip.

    If either of those occur what should May say?
    The situation remains the same. A minority government without C&S is still the government and accordingly have a Prime Minister at the head.

    May remained PM in 2017 as did Heath and Wilson in 1974.
    So May would still nominate Boris as Corbyn asks the speaker for a VoNC..
    Perhaps a group of Tory MPs Could make clear in advance of the end of the leadership election that they would nor support Boris as PM. May would then know that she could not advise HMQ to send for Boris. Boris, knowing that he could not become PM, would have the opportunity to withdraw. Result: Hunt becomes leader and subsequently PM.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284
    JackW said:

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Do you consider Israel to be anti-Semitic ? They self describe as "The Jewish State" and a proud to do so.

    You also imply that I'm an anti-Semitic Conservative voter. Wrong on both counts. The problem with Corbyn cultists is that you will brook no criticism of the Dear Leader even when fundamental weaknesses are evident. The project must not be derailed whatever the cost.
    Israel is allowed to do so, but if you as a member of a party with many anti semitic voters automatically translates Israel = Jewish then you should expect me to raise suspicion as you did in response to my comments.

    I made no more serious implications than you did, if you find yourself offended then maybe consider how you treat others.

    Also imagine I'm meeting the left wing slight with returned fire about ignorant old right wingers.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,786
    edited July 11
    I am still curious what the email leaker's actual agenda was. If associated with Johnson or Hunt presumably it failed; if Farage maybe it worked.

    On Panorama, the Labour Party is acting exactly like the Catholic Church and its child abuse problem. Defend the institution whatever it takes and don't care who gets damaged on the way.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284
    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    OT. Just watched the Panorama. That's what happens when you starve the BBC of cash. It was on a par with the Dispatches documentary Killing Lady Di backed by Al Feyed. It looked like it had been cobbled together by a 1st year media student for their end of year show. It was not investigative and it was not journaism. It was trying to prove a point.

    If the BBC want to maintain their position in the field of investigative journalism they'll have to do better than that. Decent documentaries involve a lot of research and they cost a lot of money. Getting an office junior to splice together a few bits of old news footage and then to interview a few people with a gripe accompanied by some library music entitled 'funerial' doesn't cut it and never will. 2/10

    I think Jezza will be happy with Panorama - he wants the 3m Muslim votes for the next election - and iif he has to get a bad rep for hating Jews to keep them onside well omelette and eggs etc...
    TBH the fact that Tories actively go on about the Muslims as the problem when discussing whether Labour discriminate against Jews or not without even a worry shows how messed up the whole conversation about racism is....

    The best identifier for an anti semite is probably a right wing old man who bangs on about Muslims as being the problem.


  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711

    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    OT. Just watched the Panorama. That's what happens when you starve the BBC of cash. It was on a par with the Dispatches documentary Killing Lady Di backed by Al Feyed. It looked like it had been cobbled together by a 1st year media student for their end of year show. It was not investigative and it was not journaism. It was trying to prove a point.

    If the BBC want to maintain their position in the field of investigative journalism they'll have to do better than that. Decent documentaries involve a lot of research and they cost a lot of money. Getting an office junior to splice together a few bits of old news footage and then to interview a few people with a gripe accompanied by some library music entitled 'funerial' doesn't cut it and never will. 2/10

    I think Jezza will be happy with Panorama - he wants the 3m Muslim votes for the next election - and iif he has to get a bad rep for hating Jews to keep them onside well omelette and eggs etc...

    Your assumption that Muslims are anti-Semitic is as offensively grotesque as any assumption the far left makes about Jews.

    Ah yes the “happy coincidence” theory. Well it will continue to deliver Labour MPs from key wards. See Peterborough.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,955
    TheJezziah's total lack of empathy and solidarity with a succession of people so traumatised by working for the Labour party that they had nervous breakdowns and even contemplated suicide is mirrored by the reactions of the party itself and its various outriders to the Panorama documentary. This basic failure to acknowledge the genuine pain suffered by people who only wanted the best for Labour shows just how toxic the party has become.

    Non-Labour members, imagine being Jewish or a non-Corbyn cultist in room full of Jezziahs. That's what many CLP meetings up and down the country are like these days - and there are many people suffering the anguish experienced by the Panorama interviewees as a result.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 19,063
    Not that I have a vote, but if I did, I could not support Blowjob BoJo.

    However, if I did have a vote, one of the few things that could potentially persuade me to back the egregious blond mop sex pest and serial liar would be Ashcroft endorsing the other candidate.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,340

    JackW said:

    Some interesting jumps yourself there... you do realise it is anti semitic to suggest Israel = Jewish.

    No surprise I guess considering the polling showing more anti semitism among Conservative voters than other parties such as Labour and Lib Dems.

    Do you consider Israel to be anti-Semitic ? They self describe as "The Jewish State" and a proud to do so.

    You also imply that I'm an anti-Semitic Conservative voter. Wrong on both counts. The problem with Corbyn cultists is that you will brook no criticism of the Dear Leader even when fundamental weaknesses are evident. The project must not be derailed whatever the cost.
    Israel is allowed to do so, but if you as a member of a party with many anti semitic voters automatically translates Israel = Jewish then you should expect me to raise suspicion as you did in response to my comments.

    I made no more serious implications than you did, if you find yourself offended then maybe consider how you treat others.

    Also imagine I'm meeting the left wing slight with returned fire about ignorant old right wingers.
    You are conflating individuals and the state and their beliefs and policies. Not unusual as socialists prefer the collectivism of the state to the rights of the individual.

    Being left-wing is not a slight. Being unable to recognise severe problems within a left wing party certainly is.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284



    That’s not very woke. No wonder the cool kids of Shoreditch no longer believe in Dear Leader.

    I also note the classic corbynista tactic of instead of discussing the actual point, it’s just a deflect, deflect, attack, attack.

    I can’t wait until your cult becomes a SWP irrelevance one again.

    TBH until you can correctly identify the person we are on about I'm not sure there is much point continuing this.

    I have never heard woke voters call a woman him and then proceed to get angry when corrected that the other person has assumed the gender, I think you are out on your own there.

    I can't wait until you can correctly identify which people you are trying to argue about.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 5,541
    JackW said:

    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...

    I imagine it is annoying when people bring facts into the equation to spoil a good smear, whine on about cults to make yourself feel better.
    No I get it. If only you can prove that a 100 year affiliate to the Labour Party is actually a proxy for Israel then you can prove the point that there really is an insidious Jewish plot against the Jeremy, the public will rise up against the Jew and Labour wins big. And then Israel gets overthrown and the Jews get expelled from Palestine - which is what full return rights for 2nd/3rd generation descendents of refugees means in practice. What's more, as JIM has been affiliated for 100 years that also means the Labour Party is tainted with the same Jewish plot and that means you can remove anyone who was a party member pre-2015.

    You don't see a basic political flaw with this strategy. Never mind a basic human decency flaw...
    Bla bla bla...

    I pointed out the one person on the program was an ex Israeli embassy employee, I realise as an angry centrist who keeps losing this is irritating so you have to create a grand conspiracy about what I really mean.

    Keep ranting if it makes you feel better, the facts stand however angry a response you make to them.
    You seem to be implying that formerly working for the Israeli embassy invalidates the employee claim. You are sailing very closely to the claim of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour party.

    Would having a close Jewish friend, attending a Jewish wedding or having a holiday in Israel wreck a case. I watched a few minutes of the Eurovision Song Contest hosted by Israel this year. Does that make me just musically delinquent or an agent of Mossad ?
    Would make you tone deaf, Old Timer!

    Yes, of course the Labour Party has an AS problem. It's a leadership failure, and won't be properly dealt with until the leadership is changed.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,311



    That’s not very woke. No wonder the cool kids of Shoreditch no longer believe in Dear Leader.

    I also note the classic corbynista tactic of instead of discussing the actual point, it’s just a deflect, deflect, attack, attack.

    I can’t wait until your cult becomes a SWP irrelevance one again.

    TBH until you can correctly identify the person we are on about I'm not sure there is much point continuing this.

    I have never heard woke voters call a woman him and then proceed to get angry when corrected that the other person has assumed the gender, I think you are out on your own there.

    I can't wait until you can correctly identify which people you are trying to argue about.
    deflect
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,905

    Roger said:

    OT. Just watched the Panorama. That's what happens when you starve the BBC of cash. It was on a par with the Dispatches documentary Killing Lady Di backed by Al Feyed. It looked like it had been cobbled together by a 1st year media student for their end of year show. It was not investigative and it was not journaism. It was trying to prove a point.

    If the BBC want to maintain their position in the field of investigative journalism they'll have to do better than that. Decent documentaries involve a lot of research and they cost a lot of money. Getting an office junior to splice together a few bits of old news footage and then to interview a few people with a gripe accompanied by some library music entitled 'funerial' doesn't cut it and never will. 2/10

    You could just say that people driven to nervous breakdowns and to the contemplation of suicide by the toxic working culture they were forced to endure have "a gripe", I guess. Or you could ask why things got to that point.

    It could be a dire programme about a real issue.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234

    TheJezziah's total lack of empathy and solidarity with a succession of people so traumatised by working for the Labour party that they had nervous breakdowns and even contemplated suicide is mirrored by the reactions of the party itself and its various outriders to the Panorama documentary. This basic failure to acknowledge the genuine pain suffered by people who only wanted the best for Labour shows just how toxic the party has become.

    Non-Labour members, imagine being Jewish or a non-Corbyn cultist in room full of Jezziahs. That's what many CLP meetings up and down the country are like these days - and there are many people suffering the anguish experienced by the Panorama interviewees as a result.

    Yes, that guy's resignation letter that went viral on Twitter last week began with the abuse he received whenever he walked into a party meeting, simply because he wasn't a Corbynite.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,311
    edited July 11

    JackW said:

    FPT: Jezzziah demonstrates just how twisteed and depraved the Corbynite spin machine is. Set aside the basic human creeping revulsion for a moment, it's the lack of political comprehension that baffles me the most - apparently the way to win over the public in response to events is to double down - have to prove that it really is a massive Jewish plot, look, a link to Israel! If we prove that, the scales fall from the eyes and Jeremy wins a big majority!

    We know who the cult will blame for the ultimate failure of the Corbyn cancer - Israel. Not that there is an anti-semitism problem...

    I imagine it is annoying when people bring facts into the equation to spoil a good smear, whine on about cults to make yourself feel better.
    No I get it. If only you can prove that a 100 year affiliate to the Labour Party is actually a proxy for Israel then you can prove the point that there really is an insidious Jewish plot against the Jeremy, the public will rise up against the Jew and Labour wins big. And then Israel gets overthrown and the Jews get expelled from Palestine - which is what full return rights for 2nd/3rd generation descendents of refugees means in practice. What's more, as JIM has been affiliated for 100 years that also means the Labour Party is tainted with the same Jewish plot and that means you can remove anyone who was a party member pre-2015.

    You don't see a basic political flaw with this strategy. Never mind a basic human decency flaw...
    Bla bla bla...

    I pointed out the one person on the program was an ex Israeli embassy employee, I realise as an angry centrist who keeps losing this is irritating so you have to create a grand conspiracy about what I really mean.

    Keep ranting if it makes you feel better, the facts stand however angry a response you make to them.
    You seem to be implying that formerly working for the Israeli embassy invalidates the employee claim. You are sailing very closely to the claim of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour party.

    Would having a close Jewish friend, attending a Jewish wedding or having a holiday in Israel wreck a case. I watched a few minutes of the Eurovision Song Contest hosted by Israel this year. Does that make me just musically delinquent or an agent of Mossad ?
    Would make you tone deaf, Old Timer!

    Yes, of course the Labour Party has an AS problem. It's a leadership failure, and won't be properly dealt with until the leadership is changed.
    @JackW clearly should have boycotted Eurovision, as any good progressive should, over Israel's treatment of gay people.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 5,541
    FF43 said:

    I am still curious what the email leaker's actual agenda was. If associated with Johnson or Hunt presumably it failed; if Farage maybe it worked.

    On Panorama, the Labour Party is acting exactly like the Catholic Church and its child abuse problem. Defend the institution whatever it takes and don't care who gets damaged on the way.

    That's a good analogy.

    It's not as acute or far-reaching as the CC's problem, and much easier fixed. All the Party needs to do is appoint a competent compliance team and back it. I can't see the current leadership doing that so the leadership needs to be changed.

    I can see that happening, but maybe not soon.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:



    Another four years in office would see Trump continue and likely accelerate his assault on an impartial justice system, but barring that, an incoming administration would have more important things to worry about.

    He'll probably get another SC pick if he gets the second term. The actuarial odds on the Notorious RBG making it to 2024 must be slim.
    Of course; he’d likely get more than one.
    But that would be the least of the damage done.

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 9,401
    Reading the thread this morning, there's just one question....

    Is the Chief Wingnut amongst us?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,284
    edited July 11
    .
    .
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234

    FF43 said:

    I am still curious what the email leaker's actual agenda was. If associated with Johnson or Hunt presumably it failed; if Farage maybe it worked.

    On Panorama, the Labour Party is acting exactly like the Catholic Church and its child abuse problem. Defend the institution whatever it takes and don't care who gets damaged on the way.

    That's a good analogy.

    It's not as acute or far-reaching as the CC's problem, and much easier fixed. All the Party needs to do is appoint a competent compliance team and back it. I can't see the current leadership doing that so the leadership needs to be changed.

    I can see that happening, but maybe not soon.
    The problem they have is drawing a line on acceptable/unacceptable behaviour - i.e. defining in specific terms what offences are regarded as serious - given the considerable back history many members have, from the leader down to ordinary members, of making recorded comments that are close to that line.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    IanB2 said:

    TheJezziah's total lack of empathy and solidarity with a succession of people so traumatised by working for the Labour party that they had nervous breakdowns and even contemplated suicide is mirrored by the reactions of the party itself and its various outriders to the Panorama documentary. This basic failure to acknowledge the genuine pain suffered by people who only wanted the best for Labour shows just how toxic the party has become.

    Non-Labour members, imagine being Jewish or a non-Corbyn cultist in room full of Jezziahs. That's what many CLP meetings up and down the country are like these days - and there are many people suffering the anguish experienced by the Panorama interviewees as a result.

    Yes, that guy's resignation letter that went viral on Twitter last week began with the abuse he received whenever he walked into a party meeting, simply because he wasn't a Corbynite.
    Setting on one side the allegations of antisemitism, Corbyn’s Labour has proved itself as unprincipled and abusive an employer as the worst of capitalists.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,955
    Just how toxic is Labour? Last night on Panorama we learned that its leadership instructed Carter Ruck to send a highly intimidatory legal letter to a former employee who had been so traumatised by his experiences of working for the party that he had contemplated suicide.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,977
    Scott_P said:

    Corbyn has great cause to thank Boris. The Darroch ructions have kept Panorama off the front pages. Is this the way it will be from now on?


    If Boris doesn't want to see such things he could quite easily make clear he is not Trump's bitch. Without even getting rude to Trump he could do that. 'I have great respect for Mr Trump but x' and so in.

    But didn't most Tories and leavers also back Trump over the ambassador?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 19,063
    I have seen nothing to change the conclusions I drew last year, quoted in this thread header:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/27/ultimately-corbyns-got-to-compromise-on-antisemitism-or-else-risk-splitting-the-party/

    Ultimately, damaging though the accusations of racism are, they are most serious as a threat to Labour because they feed in to the impression of cronyism, incompetence, dishonesty and lethargy surrounding Corbyn's leadership. To this we can now also add bullying and managerial practices that Tsar Nicholas II would blush at.

    Which is what is actually going to cost them the next election.

    And on that cheerful note, have a good morning.
Sign In or Register to comment.