Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
The government is actively seeking a Buckingham byelection?
No just getting rid of him as speaker, so moving him to the bank benches, The Lordship would happen when he did not stand at the next GE.
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
That would be a poor move, because you can be sure the next government will sanction it and they'll look petty as well. Fact is not all Tories are in board with getting rid of Bercow and not enough others are. Indeed, for some he could do anything and be supported because hes more useful in place
Labour are tribal they will not sanction Bercow elevated to the Lords over one of their own. If the next government is Tory then it will still be the same people who gave him the offer in charge.
Attenborough. A slightly annoying mixture of the portentous and the alarming. But still.
I need to stop buying air freighted vegetables. Should they have to bear a logo showing that they are?
I need to cut back on beef (lamb already off the agenda for health reasons).
I need to think seriously about and investigate the cost of renewable energy tariffs.
I will not buy another diesel car.
What else? There must be more. Most of the damage to the climate is not happening here. Surely our aid budget should be focused on reducing the extent of climate change by protecting forests, improving recycling in the third world, helping them to develop renewable energy systems etc.
Humanity could just have a mass suicide pact! That'd solve the problem!
If you believe some reports then we already do. Other reports are less alarmist, but the consensus ones are plenty bad imho.
Yes, Med temperatures in the South, saving on holiday bills and a boost for English wine, albeit with greater risk of flooding too.
In any case it is China, the USA and India who need to move to more renewables, what we do will make little difference either way
Very complacent attitude, and quite a lot of progress on climate change with many emerging economies. Trump is a selfish dumbass but we all knew that already.
Not complacent, reality, wailing about climate change is akin to a religion for many on the liberal left, when what is really needed is practical investment in renewables not trying to destroy western civilisation
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
The government is actively seeking a Buckingham byelection?
No just getting rid of him as speaker, so moving him to the bank benches, The Lordship would happen when he did not stand at the next GE.
Pretty sure convention is Speakers are elevated immediately upon standing down (I dont have my Erskine may in front of me to check). Of course bercow only occasionally cares about convention but I dont think as a plan this would work.
So the anger at pivoting to trying a deal with labour.. how do they propose to pass a deal without that given they cannot make the EU give the DUP what they want? Given no deal will not be supported either.
It does not need to be supported, No Deal is the default still if the Withdrawal Agreement is not passed by the end of October, the Commons can request another extension but that relies on the EU agreeing again and Macron not vetoing this time
Which I do not think he would. Why then if not now? The EU blinked and allowed a blind extension, theyd do it again. And the point about no deal not being g supported is that if means a government trying for it will fail- wed get another Letwin Cooper Bill, and if the EU look like saying no if we dont provide a reason the commons would come up with something.
The EU wanted extension to next year, Macron to June, they met halfway, October could be Macron's limit
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
That would be a poor move, because you can be sure the next government will sanction it and they'll look petty as well. Fact is not all Tories are in board with getting rid of Bercow and not enough others are. Indeed, for some he could do anything and be supported because hes more useful in place
Labour are tribal they will not sanction Bercow elevated to the Lords over one of their own. If the next government is Tory then it will still be the same people who gave him the offer in charge.
I dont see how, given convention for ex speakers, either side would justify not allowing him to be recommended for a peerage.
So the anger at pivoting to trying a deal with labour.. how do they propose to pass a deal without that given they cannot make the EU give the DUP what they want? Given no deal will not be supported either.
It does not need to be supported, No Deal is the default still if the Withdrawal Agreement is not passed by the end of October, the Commons can request another extension but that relies on the EU agreeing again and Macron not vetoing this time
Which I do not think he would. Why then if not now? The EU blinked and allowed a blind extension, theyd do it again. And the point about no deal not being g supported is that if means a government trying for it will fail- wed get another Letwin Cooper Bill, and if the EU look like saying no if we dont provide a reason the commons would come up with something.
The EU wanted extension to next year, Macron to June, they met halfway, October could be Macron's limit
So you've already showed he gave in on his limit. The same pressures would apply next time.
Attenborough. A slightly annoying mixture of the portentous and the alarming. But still.
I need to stop buying air freighted vegetables. Should they have to bear a logo showing that they are?
I need to cut back on beef (lamb already off the agenda for health reasons).
I need to think seriously about and investigate the cost of renewable energy tariffs.
I will not buy another diesel car.
What else? There must be more. Most of the damage to the climate is not happening here. Surely our aid budget should be focused on reducing the extent of climate change by protecting forests, improving recycling in the third world, helping them to develop renewable energy systems etc.
Humanity could just have a mass suicide pact! That'd solve the problem!
If you believe some reports then we already do. Other reports are less alarmist, but the consensus ones are plenty bad imho.
Yes, Med temperatures in the South, saving on holiday bills and a boost for English wine, albeit with greater risk of flooding too.
In any case it is China, the USA and India who need to move to more renewables, what we do will make little difference either way
Very complacent attitude, and quite a lot of progress on climate change with many emerging economies. Trump is a selfish dumbass but we all knew that already.
Does anyone else on PB remember rain?
I remember rain.
I remember rain coming down so hard it turned roads into rivers. I remember rain so soft it formed a layer of jewels on the surface of my jumper. I remember sideways rain and swirling rain. Cold rain and warm rain.
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
That would be a poor move, because you can be sure the next government will sanction it and they'll look petty as well. Fact is not all Tories are in board with getting rid of Bercow and not enough others are. Indeed, for some he could do anything and be supported because hes more useful in place
Labour are tribal they will not sanction Bercow elevated to the Lords over one of their own. If the next government is Tory then it will still be the same people who gave him the offer in charge.
I dont see how, given convention for ex speakers, either side would justify not allowing him to be recommended for a peerage.
Bercow as Speaker has not stuck with convention. They would say you have reaped what you have sown.
My MP Dame Eleanor Laing as Deputy Speaker is certainly in the running to succeed Bercow and would do an excellent job (she was also a Leaver but backed May's Deal)
I guess a Labour candidate is likely to win if the contest is held in the current parliament. It is Labour's turn to provide a speaker, and they will be more likely to unite behind one of their own than the Tories, who will inevitably see the contest through the prism of Brexit and try to elect a leaver.
Bercow has effectively already been a Labour Speaker, the Tories wanted Sir George Young and before Bercow we had 2 more Labour Speakers, Michael Martin and Betty Boothroyd
Sir George Young: Eton & PPE at Oxford. You can see why David Cameron would have backed him.
So the anger at pivoting to trying a deal with labour.. how do they propose to pass a deal without that given they cannot make the EU give the DUP what they want? Given no deal will not be supported either.
It does not need to be supported, No Deal is the default still if the Withdrawal Agreement is not passed by the end of October, the Commons can request another extension but that relies on the EU agreeing again and Macron not vetoing this time
Which I do not think he would. Why then if not now? The EU blinked and allowed a blind extension, theyd do it again. And the point about no deal not being g supported is that if means a government trying for it will fail- wed get another Letwin Cooper Bill, and if the EU look like saying no if we dont provide a reason the commons would come up with something.
The EU wanted extension to next year, Macron to June, they met halfway, October could be Macron's limit
So you've already showed he gave in on his limit. The same pressures would apply next time.
This time there may be no further room for compromise.
You also ignore the fact that May can be challenged again in a VONC in December, if the Brexit Party is still eating into the Tory vote a hard Brexiteer will probably replace her as Tory leader and PM and if the WA has not been passed by that point Brexit with no further extension looks likely as that PM would not agree another
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
Would Labour back Bercow if it was agreed that Lyndsay Hoyle should take over?
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
That would be a poor move, because you can be sure the next government will sanction it and they'll look petty as well. Fact is not all Tories are in board with getting rid of Bercow and not enough others are. Indeed, for some he could do anything and be supported because hes more useful in place
Labour are tribal they will not sanction Bercow elevated to the Lords over one of their own. If the next government is Tory then it will still be the same people who gave him the offer in charge.
I dont see how, given convention for ex speakers, either side would justify not allowing him to be recommended for a peerage.
Well, because Bercow takes quite a revisionist view on convention.......
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
The government is actively seeking a Buckingham byelection?
No just getting rid of him as speaker, so moving him to the bank benches, The Lordship would happen when he did not stand at the next GE.
So, the government would end up losing one of their reliable votes, and getting Bercow voting instead?
Ultimately, though, there are simply not the votes to depose Bercow.
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
They were mainly full of middle class students really and working class people are not really interested in marching to raise their fuel and gas bills
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
They were mainly full of middle class students really and working class people are not really interested in marching to raise their fuel and gas bills
Porritt always said there could be no saving of the environment without more social equity/justice.
Even MPs are going for him now? They're losing it. What plans does he have besides faux churchillian rhetoric?
He can’t do Churchill. Not even Cod-style. But he should succeed May. Johnson deserves total humiliation at home and abroad.
Boris and Trump would make an ideal team
Really?
I suspect that Trump would find Boris condescending, and Boris would soon discover that Trump was only on Trump's side
Boris and Trump are both egotistical and huge personalities, they would certainly align, Trump has far more in common with Boris than Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, Abe etc.
At the moment only Bolsonaro and Netanyahu amongst world leaders really align with Trump. Trump has also said 'I like Boris Johnson a lot. He's a friend of mine.'
Even MPs are going for him now? They're losing it. What plans does he have besides faux churchillian rhetoric?
He can’t do Churchill. Not even Cod-style. But he should succeed May. Johnson deserves total humiliation at home and abroad.
Boris and Trump would make an ideal team
Really?
I suspect that Trump would find Boris condescending, and Boris would soon discover that Trump was only on Trump's side
Plus Boris would expect a better dinner than KFC or some crappy burger and coke.
'Boris Johnson had just finished a plate of burger and chips and was halfway down a pint of Young’s ale in the Uxbridge Conservative club when the bongs of Big Ben from the television signalled that it was 10 o’clock'
Even MPs are going for him now? They're losing it. What plans does he have besides faux churchillian rhetoric?
He can’t do Churchill. Not even Cod-style. But he should succeed May. Johnson deserves total humiliation at home and abroad.
Boris and Trump would make an ideal team
Really?
I suspect that Trump would find Boris condescending, and Boris would soon discover that Trump was only on Trump's side
Plus Boris would expect a better dinner than KFC or some crappy burger and coke.
'Boris Johnson had just finished a plate of burger and chips and was halfway down a pint of Young’s ale in the Uxbridge Conservative club when the bongs of Big Ben from the television signalled that it was 10 o’clock'
Even MPs are going for him now? They're losing it. What plans does he have besides faux churchillian rhetoric?
He can’t do Churchill. Not even Cod-style. But he should succeed May. Johnson deserves total humiliation at home and abroad.
Boris and Trump would make an ideal team
Really?
I suspect that Trump would find Boris condescending, and Boris would soon discover that Trump was only on Trump's side
Plus Boris would expect a better dinner than KFC or some crappy burger and coke.
'Boris Johnson had just finished a plate of burger and chips and was halfway down a pint of Young’s ale in the Uxbridge Conservative club when the bongs of Big Ben from the television signalled that it was 10 o’clock'
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
MPs would be stupid to put up Boris through to the members vote. If they want Brexit delivered they need someone who has a work ethic and the ability to focus on the detail of parliamentary workings. Boris is lazy and unfocused.
I think the CUKs should put to bed the tired stuff about Labour being 20 points ahead if we had these type of people in charge. They would have lost the last election (in much worse fashion than hung parliament) and they would be on course to lose the next one.
There is a group who would much prefer Labour doing that anyway, the 3%-8% or so that are voting for them who are heavily over represented in the media. They don't really speak to the electorate though. Or have ideas. Or that much political talent. There is very little reason to argue the change in Labour to those like CUK would be anything but the disaster CUK has been.
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
MPs would be stupid to put up Boris through to the members vote. If they want Brexit delivered they need someone who has a work ethic and the ability to focus on the detail of parliamentary workings. Boris is lazy and unfocused.
Boris would re-rat and revoke A50. Not because he believes in the EU all of a sudden, but because, as you say, he doesn’t want to do the hard work and so he can pose as a statesman, reconciling the country and “sending Brexit back to the drawing board”. He would, of course, pledge to re-invoke A50 just as soon as the plan for a perfect Brexit is ready, but somehow this never quite happens.
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
MPs would be stupid to put up Boris through to the members vote. If they want Brexit delivered they need someone who has a work ethic and the ability to focus on the detail of parliamentary workings. Boris is lazy and unfocused.
Boris would re-rat and revoke A50. Not because he believes in the EU all of a sudden, but because, as you say, he doesn’t want to do the hard work and so he can pose as a statesman, reconciling the country and “sending Brexit back to the drawing board”. He would, of course, pledge to re-invoke A50 just as soon as the plan for a perfect Brexit is ready, but somehow this never quite happens.
This is why Boris is the only possible choice for les bleus. He's the only one who can pull off the re-rat to save the party. None of the other contenders will be able to piss in the members' faces and convince them it's raining like Boris.
So the anger at pivoting to trying a deal with labour.. how do they propose to pass a deal without that given they cannot make the EU give the DUP what they want? Given no deal will not be supported either.
It does not need to be supported, No Deal is the default still if the Withdrawal Agreement is not passed by the end of October, the Commons can request another extension but that relies on the EU agreeing again and Macron not vetoing this time
Which I do not think he would. Why then if not now? The EU blinked and allowed a blind extension, theyd do it again. And the point about no deal not being g supported is that if means a government trying for it will fail- wed get another Letwin Cooper Bill, and if the EU look like saying no if we dont provide a reason the commons would come up with something.
The EU wanted extension to next year, Macron to June, they met halfway, October could be Macron's limit
So you've already showed he gave in on his limit. The same pressures would apply next time.
This time there may be no further room for compromise.
You also ignore the fact that May can be challenged again in a VONC in December, if the Brexit Party is still eating into the Tory vote a hard Brexiteer will probably replace her as Tory leader and PM and if the WA has not been passed by that point Brexit with no further extension looks likely as that PM would not agree another
I agree there’ll be no further extensions, but the current deadline is well before the Theresa hunting season reopens. If we’ve not left the EU by then, we’ll have revoked.
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
MPs would be stupid to put up Boris through to the members vote. If they want Brexit delivered they need someone who has a work ethic and the ability to focus on the detail of parliamentary workings. Boris is lazy and unfocused.
Boris would re-rat and revoke A50. Not because he believes in the EU all of a sudden, but because, as you say, he doesn’t want to do the hard work and so he can pose as a statesman, reconciling the country and “sending Brexit back to the drawing board”. He would, of course, pledge to re-invoke A50 just as soon as the plan for a perfect Brexit is ready, but somehow this never quite happens.
This is why Boris is the only possible choice for les bleus. He's the only one who can pull off the re-rat to save the party. None of the other contenders will be able to piss in the members' faces and convince them it's raining like Boris.
What if May made him Brexit Secretary? He could 'discover' that it's all a mess and blame David Davis.
"The final blow was the unwillingness of a consortium of banks to release emergency funding. They had been burned during the collapse of Kingfisher Airlines in 2012 in similar circumstances."
Who would have wanted to fly with an airline named after a bird famous for plunging at speed into water?
Even MPs are going for him now? They're losing it. What plans does he have besides faux churchillian rhetoric?
He can’t do Churchill. Not even Cod-style. But he should succeed May. Johnson deserves total humiliation at home and abroad.
Boris and Trump would make an ideal team
Really?
I suspect that Trump would find Boris condescending, and Boris would soon discover that Trump was only on Trump's side
Boris and Trump are both egotistical and huge personalities, they would certainly align, Trump has far more in common with Boris than Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, Abe etc.
At the moment only Bolsonaro and Netanyahu amongst world leaders really align with Trump. Trump has also said 'I like Boris Johnson a lot. He's a friend of mine.'
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
The government is actively seeking a Buckingham byelection?
No just getting rid of him as speaker, so moving him to the bank benches, The Lordship would happen when he did not stand at the next GE.
He has the option of threatening to resign and cause a by-election, if he is deposed. Resigning in such circumstances is the right thing to do, anyway; Speakers never return to active electoral politics.
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
They were mainly full of middle class students really and working class people are not really interested in marching to raise their fuel and gas bills
Porritt always said there could be no saving of the environment without more social equity/justice.
Didn’t Porritt also back forced sterilisation of poor people?
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
MPs would be stupid to put up Boris through to the members vote. If they want Brexit delivered they need someone who has a work ethic and the ability to focus on the detail of parliamentary workings. Boris is lazy and unfocused.
Boris would re-rat and revoke A50. Not because he believes in the EU all of a sudden, but because, as you say, he doesn’t want to do the hard work and so he can pose as a statesman, reconciling the country and “sending Brexit back to the drawing board”. He would, of course, pledge to re-invoke A50 just as soon as the plan for a perfect Brexit is ready, but somehow this never quite happens.
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
You might find this article on the organisational structure of Extinction Rebellion interesting. In large part the middle class element is due to the deliberate arret policy. More marginal communities are quite reluctant to go down that route. Pretty much all Green campaigners take the view that there can be no climate justice without social justice.
Didn’t know the Canadians go through the same pointless “tax season” farce as we do in the US.
Is PAYE not a thing in either country ?
In America they have withholding which is a bit like PAYE done incredibly badly. Each payday (normally fortnightly) employers deduct a rough guess at how much tax you owe, then at the end of the year, you fill in a tax return and the IRS sends you a cheque or a bill for the difference.
Here is why it matters. Trump and the GOP gave everyone a huuuuuge tax cut, so most workers will be expecting a huuuuuge refund from the IRS. If they get a bill instead because the huuuuuge tax cut mainly benefited billionaires, then 2020 might be back in play.
LOL. This garbled account based on talking to American colleagues over the past weeks has, I've just found, been scooped overnight by the American press.
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
MPs would be stupid to put up Boris through to the members vote. If they want Brexit delivered they need someone who has a work ethic and the ability to focus on the detail of parliamentary workings. Boris is lazy and unfocused.
Boris would re-rat and revoke A50. Not because he believes in the EU all of a sudden, but because, as you say, he doesn’t want to do the hard work and so he can pose as a statesman, reconciling the country and “sending Brexit back to the drawing board”. He would, of course, pledge to re-invoke A50 just as soon as the plan for a perfect Brexit is ready, but somehow this never quite happens.
If Boris made Brexit 'go away' by revoking he'd pick up most of the non-Brexit Party vote say 85% shared between him and Corbyn.
O/t but it's the first home game of the season at Chelmsford today; pity it's 50 overs instead of a proper game, but the sun's shining, the forecast is excellent, and Essex won their last game. And I should be able to walk from the car park without difficulty, and climb the stairs to my favourite seating area without problems, neither of which I could do last year!
Mr JohnL, when you say "2020 might be back in play" do you mean for a Republican challenger to Trump?
Tbh I'm not really sure what I mean but if Trump's ratings fall, it will enthuse the Democrats, encourage Republican challengers, and perhaps also make GOP partisans think twice about defending their president over Mueller and other legal embarrassments down the line.
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
MPs would be stupid to put up Boris through to the members vote. If they want Brexit delivered they need someone who has a work ethic and the ability to focus on the detail of parliamentary workings. Boris is lazy and unfocused.
Boris would re-rat and revoke A50. Not because he believes in the EU all of a sudden, but because, as you say, he doesn’t want to do the hard work and so he can pose as a statesman, reconciling the country and “sending Brexit back to the drawing board”. He would, of course, pledge to re-invoke A50 just as soon as the plan for a perfect Brexit is ready, but somehow this never quite happens.
If Boris made Brexit 'go away' by revoking he'd pick up most of the non-Brexit Party vote say 85% shared between him and Corbyn.
Except that there'd always be the fear that he'd re-re-rat.
Mr. JohnL, ah, ok. It's just that I thought 2020 was very much in play anyway. I know incumbents rarely lose, but Trump's original margin of victory was slender.
King Cole, the only way to be sure to know what Boris is thinking is to go to Afghanistan, climb under a table, and ask him.
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
You might find this article on the organisational structure of Extinction Rebellion interesting. In large part the middle class element is due to the deliberate arret policy. More marginal communities are quite reluctant to go down that route. Pretty much all Green campaigners take the view that there can be no climate justice without social justice.
Paula Radcliffe is probably right that it will embolden transgender athletes if Caster Semenya wins. But she is a very special case and whatever the decision it should not be seen as precedent setting.
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
You might find this article on the organisational structure of Extinction Rebellion interesting. In large part the middle class element is due to the deliberate arret policy. More marginal communities are quite reluctant to go down that route. Pretty much all Green campaigners take the view that there can be no climate justice without social justice.
This reminds me of the 'Occupy' movement of 8-9 years ago - and I bet it contains many of the same people. I'll also bet it'll end up the same way.
Possibly, or like Swampie and the road protesters of the Nineties.
On the other hand, it might form part of the wider Green surge we see across Europe in the Euros, Greens now being the second party of Germany.
The sneering and snobbery of the PB Tories mocking these protests show why it is so hard for them to regain the votes of the white middle class bedrock of the country. Even Maggie took Climate change seriously.
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
Blunt is wasting his time. Bercow is protected by Tory Remainers like Grieve, Letwin and Clarke acting alongside Labour etc. Trying to remove him is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of MPs on all sides of the House just as allowing him to stay despite his evident bias on matters like Brexit brings British politics into disrepute and makes it at international laughing stock.
Seeing as it has been stated that the Government is onside with getting rid of him, I thought that proposition would be. Leave now and you can be a Lord. Do not leave now and the Tory party will not sanction that elevation.
That would be a poor move, because you can be sure the next government will sanction it and they'll look petty as well. Fact is not all Tories are in board with getting rid of Bercow and not enough others are. Indeed, for some he could do anything and be supported because hes more useful in place
Labour are tribal they will not sanction Bercow elevated to the Lords over one of their own. If the next government is Tory then it will still be the same people who gave him the offer in charge.
I dont see how, given convention for ex speakers, either side would justify not allowing him to be recommended for a peerage.
Bercow as Speaker has not stuck with convention. They would say you have reaped what you have sown.
Bercow can do more damage as an MP than as a Lord.
Paula Radcliffe is probably right that it will embolden transgender athletes if Caster Semenya wins. But she is a very special case and whatever the decision it should not be seen as precedent setting.
I don't think it should, Semenya is I believe absolutely biologically female and has never changed her gender; whereas say Rachel McKinnon was born male and has changed her gender.
One solution I think that could be put in place is for the women's competition to be reclassified as "Born female and female", and recreate men's sport as simply an open event - Neither Buck Angel (If he so wished) or Rachel McKinnon should compete in what is currently known as the female category. As to which loo Buck Angel should use, I'm afraid I must disagree with Ted Cruz that he should head into the ladies..
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
You might find this article on the organisational structure of Extinction Rebellion interesting. In large part the middle class element is due to the deliberate arret policy. More marginal communities are quite reluctant to go down that route. Pretty much all Green campaigners take the view that there can be no climate justice without social justice.
This reminds me of the 'Occupy' movement of 8-9 years ago - and I bet it contains many of the same people. I'll also bet it'll end up the same way.
Possibly, or like Swampie and the road protesters of the Nineties.
On the other hand, it might form part of the wider Green surge we see across Europe in the Euros, Greens now being the second party of Germany.
The sneering and snobbery of the PB Tories mocking these protests show why it is so hard for them to regain the votes of the white middle class bedrock of the country. Even Maggie took Climate change seriously.
The tories have basically given up on any voter who has a blood pressure lower than 140/90 - whether induced by age or europhobic fury or both.
Attenborough. A slightly annoying mixture of the portentous and the alarming. But still.
I need to stop buying air freighted vegetables. Should they have to bear a logo showing that they are?
I need to cut back on beef (lamb already off the agenda for health reasons).
I need to think seriously about and investigate the cost of renewable energy tariffs.
I will not buy another diesel car.
What else? There must be more. ...
I need to stop using a compu
I supposed you stopped buying butter and switched to polyunsaturated marge.. then switched back when they told you marg was bad.. you eat bacon butties until someone told you it was bad for you , until you realised you had to eat bacon butties every day for 50 yrs before it very slightly increased your risk of getting bowel cancer.
There is nothing wrong with an EU6 compliant diesel.
One of the big questions at the moment is why are the climate change protests so middle-class? In the 60s and 70s the equivalent types of protest, for civil rights and anti-Vietnam for instance, had much more of a mixture of middle and working-class people.
You might find this article on the organisational structure of Extinction Rebellion interesting. In large part the middle class element is due to the deliberate arret policy. More marginal communities are quite reluctant to go down that route. Pretty much all Green campaigners take the view that there can be no climate justice without social justice.
This reminds me of the 'Occupy' movement of 8-9 years ago - and I bet it contains many of the same people. I'll also bet it'll end up the same way.
Possibly, or like Swampie and the road protesters of the Nineties.
On the other hand, it might form part of the wider Green surge we see across Europe in the Euros, Greens now being the second party of Germany.
The sneering and snobbery of the PB Tories mocking these protests show why it is so hard for them to regain the votes of the white middle class bedrock of the country. Even Maggie took Climate change seriously.
Again, we saw similar 'mocking' (and I think it's a little deeper than that) over Occupy - and the cynics were proved correct.
It's not not taking climate change seriously: it's the weighting that's given to it over everything else that a democracy needs to do wrt its population.
I'm a natural small-c conservative: evolution is (almost) always better than revolution. And evolution is what we've had with environmental legislation: from the clean air acts from the 1950s, to the landfill taxes and recycling schemes. That's not saying more cannot be done, but the 'more' needs to be weighted by other requirements such as the economy, jobs, technologies etc.
And change needs to be carefully done: as we saw with the Brown-era well-intended push for diesel, to today's anti-diesel movement.
"the Brown-era well-intended push for diesel, to today's anti-diesel movement."
I was still gainfully employed then, and I remember getting a phone call from an academic who wanted me to tell the government about his research into diesel particulates. I'm not sure how he ended talking to me, but I gently explained that I was sure the government was fully aware of the research (I knew of it), but being politicians, they could only deal with one fact at a time. I was nearing retirement and being honest
Carbon dioxide was the name of the game, and remains the priority - hence the enthusiasm to put cladding on places like Grenfell Towers to reduce emissions.
Public enthusiasm doesn't always equate to science. Middle-class people have a high regard for their own scientific knowledge, even more so when they struggle with joined-up writing
Mueller is interesting. Donald Trump tried his best to obstruct justice but his best was not quite good enough. Key aides ignored him. This appears to be a central theme of the Trump administration. He is allowed to play at being president and so long as it feels real enough to him, that he gets to do things that presidents do, go to places that presidents go to, gets in plenty of Air Force One, big black motorcades, etc etc, he is happy as larry.
Paula Radcliffe is probably right that it will embolden transgender athletes if Caster Semenya wins. But she is a very special case and whatever the decision it should not be seen as precedent setting.
I don't think it should, Semenya is I believe absolutely biologically female and has never changed her gender; whereas say Rachel McKinnon was born male and has changed her gender.
One solution I think that could be put in place is for the women's competition to be reclassified as "Born female and female", and recreate men's sport as simply an open event - Neither Buck Angel (If he so wished) or Rachel McKinnon should compete in what is currently known as the female category. As to which loo Buck Angel should use, I'm afraid I must disagree with Ted Cruz that he should head into the ladies..
Women’s sport is in danger, I find it of the most unbelievable aspects of modern life
Mueller is interesting. Donald Trump tried his best to obstruct justice but his best was not quite good enough. Key aides ignored him. This appears to be a central theme of the Trump administration. He is allowed to play at being president and so long as it feels real enough to him, that he gets to do things that presidents do, go to places that presidents go to, gets in plenty of Air Force One, big black motorcades, etc etc, he is happy as larry.
It's not a bad solution.
Cynics would say that was also the pattern for Reagan and GW Bush.
The whole point of women's sport is that, in most areas, women aren't as physically strong as men (not just because of muscle difference but composition, men have roughly twice the muscle and half the fat of women, on average). Pretending there's no physical difference is nuts.
As an aside, I think the W Series motorsport category, a new formula that began this year and is female-only, is a significant step backwards. Motorsport is one area where men and women should be able to compete together, and segregating women is only going to reinforce the belief some have that women are inferior drivers.
Even MPs are going for him now? They're losing it. What plans does he have besides faux churchillian rhetoric?
He can’t do Churchill. Not even Cod-style. But he should succeed May. Johnson deserves total humiliation at home and abroad.
Boris and Trump would make an ideal team
Really?
I suspect that Trump would find Boris condescending, and Boris would soon discover that Trump was only on Trump's side
Boris and Trump are both egotistical and huge personalities, they would certainly align, Trump has far more in common with Boris than Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, Abe etc.
At the moment only Bolsonaro and Netanyahu amongst world leaders really align with Trump. Trump has also said 'I like Boris Johnson a lot. He's a friend of mine.'
These are Boris allies talking. And when they say allies, presumably they mean, errr, Boris himself
It matches the mood in the country, Tory members and voters are furious we are still in the EU and Boris is the ideal candidate to win back those who have defected to the Brexit Party, without which the Tories will not win
MPs would be stupid to put up Boris through to the members vote. If they want Brexit delivered they need someone who has a work ethic and the ability to focus on the detail of parliamentary workings. Boris is lazy and unfocused.
Boris doesn't need to deliver Brexit through technical negotiations with MPs, either the Withdrawal Agreement has passed by October, in which case Brexit has been delivered anyway, or Boris can simply refuse to ask for any more extensions and if the Commons tries to thwart him call a general election with Brexit Party voters returning to the Tories in droves
The whole point of women's sport is that, in most areas, women aren't as physically strong as men (not just because of muscle difference but composition, men have roughly twice the muscle and half the fat of women, on average). Pretending there's no physical difference is nuts.
As an aside, I think the W Series motorsport category, a new formula that began this year and is female-only, is a significant step backwards. Motorsport is one area where men and women should be able to compete together, and segregating women is only going to reinforce the belief some have that women are inferior drivers.
I seem to recall that you were against women being in F1 and motorsport in general, and that you are one of those who believe that women are inferior drivers for the reason you set out in the first paragraph.
Given some of the horror stories I've heard about young women competing in junior formulae (something which the FIA is trying to stop), I'm all in favour of Formula W.
(BTW, in the early 2000s there was a conversation on a motorpsort forum where people were saying blacks could not compete in the top ranks of motorsport - e.g. F1, Indycar or Nascar. Then along came a certain Lewis Hamilton.)
Does anyone else find it mildly amusing/pathetic (delete as applicable) that Boris is attempting to damage a rival by claiming the rival in question is having an affair?
Mr. Jessop, I ended up not publishing it because I used it as an example for a job application for writing F1 stuff, but I did write an article explaining why I was against W Series.
I'm not sure you remember that correctly, or possibly my view's changed if you remember it from a very long time ago. The main physical issue is the neck and the strain it's under, but I don't think that's an insurmountable barrier, and as women can make excellent fighter pilots I fail to see why they can't make excellent F1 drivers.
Comments
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1118995782852579329?s=20
I remember rain coming down so hard it turned roads into rivers. I remember rain so soft it formed a layer of jewels on the surface of my jumper. I remember sideways rain and swirling rain. Cold rain and warm rain.
I remember rain.
You also ignore the fact that May can be challenged again in a VONC in December, if the Brexit Party is still eating into the Tory vote a hard Brexiteer will probably replace her as Tory leader and PM and if the WA has not been passed by that point Brexit with no further extension looks likely as that PM would not agree another
Ultimately, though, there are simply not the votes to depose Bercow.
I suspect that Trump would find Boris condescending, and Boris would soon discover that Trump was only on Trump's side
Major contrast with Boris over their respective times in the Foreign Office (hint: one of them does any work and is interested in detail and policy).
Definitely worth a read for all those betting on Hunt.
Buttigieg: 7.2
Biden: 7.6
They were mainly full of middle class students really and working class people are not really interested in marching to raise their fuel and gas bills
At the moment only Bolsonaro and Netanyahu amongst world leaders really align with Trump. Trump has also said 'I like Boris Johnson a lot. He's a friend of mine.'
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/trump-backs-boris-johnson-for-british-prime-minister-amid-brexit-turmoil-but-says-of-theresa-may-shes-tough-shes-in-there-fighting/ar-BBVmlsL
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-tory-ministers-plotted-to-get-rid-of-theresa-may-38j8zrv3m
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1119006107622674432?s=20
Next time he hears those bongs in Uxbridge though he will be losing his seat, so Owen Jones tells me.
Neither is fit to be PM, and will be utterly shit at the job frankly, but both are campaigners.
"[He] scans like a lost episode of The West Wing." {NB: possibly a compliment}
" he’s an old person’s idea of what a young person should be like,"
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/17/media-dumped-beto-mayor-pete-buttigieg-226660
See Nate Silver, who used DATA:
https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1118989755176357898
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47985469
I think the CUKs should put to bed the tired stuff about Labour being 20 points ahead if we had these type of people in charge. They would have lost the last election (in much worse fashion than hung parliament) and they would be on course to lose the next one.
There is a group who would much prefer Labour doing that anyway, the 3%-8% or so that are voting for them who are heavily over represented in the media. They don't really speak to the electorate though. Or have ideas. Or that much political talent. There is very little reason to argue the change in Labour to those like CUK would be anything but the disaster CUK has been.
What was once India’s second biggest carrier collapses"
https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2019/04/18/jet-airways-stops-all-operations
Who would have wanted to fly with an airline named after a bird famous for plunging at speed into water?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1118938914386059264?s=19
Here is why it matters. Trump and the GOP gave everyone a huuuuuge tax cut, so most workers will be expecting a huuuuuge refund from the IRS. If they get a bill instead because the huuuuuge tax cut mainly benefited billionaires, then 2020 might be back in play.
LOL. This garbled account based on talking to American colleagues over the past weeks has, I've just found, been scooped overnight by the American press.
Mr JohnL, when you say "2020 might be back in play" do you mean for a Republican challenger to Trump?
King Cole, the only way to be sure to know what Boris is thinking is to go to Afghanistan, climb under a table, and ask him.
"Semenya ruling may bring death of women's sport, warns Paula Radcliffe
Radcliffe thinks that if Semenya wins her case it will embolden the case of transgender athletes to compete in women's categories."
https://news.sky.com/story/semenya-ruling-may-bring-death-of-womens-sport-warns-paula-radcliffe-11697562
On the other hand, it might form part of the wider Green surge we see across Europe in the Euros, Greens now being the second party of Germany.
The sneering and snobbery of the PB Tories mocking these protests show why it is so hard for them to regain the votes of the white middle class bedrock of the country. Even Maggie took Climate change seriously.
There is also no inclusive case for Brexit, which is why none of the arsonists can articulate a case for the fire.
One solution I think that could be put in place is for the women's competition to be reclassified as "Born female and female", and recreate men's sport as simply an open event - Neither Buck Angel (If he so wished) or Rachel McKinnon should compete in what is currently known as the female category. As to which loo Buck Angel should use, I'm afraid I must disagree with Ted Cruz that he should head into the ladies..
There is nothing wrong with an EU6 compliant diesel.
It's not not taking climate change seriously: it's the weighting that's given to it over everything else that a democracy needs to do wrt its population.
I'm a natural small-c conservative: evolution is (almost) always better than revolution. And evolution is what we've had with environmental legislation: from the clean air acts from the 1950s, to the landfill taxes and recycling schemes. That's not saying more cannot be done, but the 'more' needs to be weighted by other requirements such as the economy, jobs, technologies etc.
And change needs to be carefully done: as we saw with the Brown-era well-intended push for diesel, to today's anti-diesel movement.
"the Brown-era well-intended push for diesel, to today's anti-diesel movement."
I was still gainfully employed then, and I remember getting a phone call from an academic who wanted me to tell the government about his research into diesel particulates. I'm not sure how he ended talking to me, but I gently explained that I was sure the government was fully aware of the research (I knew of it), but being politicians, they could only deal with one fact at a time. I was nearing retirement and being honest
Carbon dioxide was the name of the game, and remains the priority - hence the enthusiasm to put cladding on places like Grenfell Towers to reduce emissions.
Public enthusiasm doesn't always equate to science. Middle-class people have a high regard for their own scientific knowledge, even more so when they struggle with joined-up writing
It's not a bad solution.
India voter 'chops off finger' after voting for wrong party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-47986377
The whole point of women's sport is that, in most areas, women aren't as physically strong as men (not just because of muscle difference but composition, men have roughly twice the muscle and half the fat of women, on average). Pretending there's no physical difference is nuts.
As an aside, I think the W Series motorsport category, a new formula that began this year and is female-only, is a significant step backwards. Motorsport is one area where men and women should be able to compete together, and segregating women is only going to reinforce the belief some have that women are inferior drivers.
looking more and more like a one man presidential campaign than a party
Given some of the horror stories I've heard about young women competing in junior formulae (something which the FIA is trying to stop), I'm all in favour of Formula W.
(BTW, in the early 2000s there was a conversation on a motorpsort forum where people were saying blacks could not compete in the top ranks of motorsport - e.g. F1, Indycar or Nascar. Then along came a certain Lewis Hamilton.)
Does anyone else find it mildly amusing/pathetic (delete as applicable) that Boris is attempting to damage a rival by claiming the rival in question is having an affair?
I'm not sure you remember that correctly, or possibly my view's changed if you remember it from a very long time ago. The main physical issue is the neck and the strain it's under, but I don't think that's an insurmountable barrier, and as women can make excellent fighter pilots I fail to see why they can't make excellent F1 drivers.