Not The Politics Thread.

[WigstonWanderer]

40 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I was amazed to see her age. I'd assumed she was quite young, which might have been a partial excuse for such stupidity - and she does look quite young.

 

She's bloody 56...... 

Yeah, now I’m in my mid sixties the policeman all look much younger too Alf 

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

**** OFF I thought she was late 20s!!

 

Likewise. I certainly didn't imagine she was older than early 30s.

 

9 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

She's so thick man, why do Labour constantly shove these MPs to the front of the queue, give us someone local with an IQ higher than 30.

 

To be fair, there is only a handful like her - though that's a handful too many. But they tend to seek publicity - and media hostile to Labour are keen to fan that publicity to mislead people into believing they are representative of the party.

She's currently suspended from the party whip pending a court charge for harassment, which she denies.

 

She and one or two others became MPs at the last minute due to sudden vacancies before the election (due to the Vaz shenanigans in her case).

Usually prospective MPs are selected by the local party so people with sub-adolescent, polarised views rarely get selected.

But last-minute vacancies are filled by the party's National Executive Committee, which was controlled by the Corbynites in 2019 (but isn't now)....so Claudia is a parting gift from Jeremy & mates.

[Gordon the Great]

18 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

**** OFF I thought she was late 20s!!

 

She's so thick man, why do Labour constantly shove these MPs to the front of the queue, give us someone local with an IQ higher than 30.

No it`s fine, leave it as it is.........................

[String fellow]

20 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

**** OFF I thought she was late 20s!!

 

She's so thick man, why do Labour constantly shove these MPs to the front of the queue, give us someone local with an IQ higher than 30.

Worryingly, it seems that an IQ of 30 is no barrier to getting a BA from DMU and an MSc from Birkbeck College. What was her dissertation in? Maybe the art of making incredibly stupid comments on social media platforms. 

[doverfox]

On 15/04/2021 at 19:17, String fellow said:

Worryingly, it seems that an IQ of 30 is no barrier to getting a BA from DMU and an MSc from Birkbeck College. What was her dissertation in? Maybe the art of making incredibly stupid comments on social media platforms. 

As  socialist songwriter Billy Bragg says"Qualifications whats the golden rule thayre just peices of paper."

[bovril]

She has a reasonably impressive CV. It is fascinating how seemingly intelligent people can write the dippiest shit on twitter. 

[Alf Bentley]

This seems to assume a benign outcome from global warming, but interesting hypothetical glimpses of the future.... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/17/scotland-norway-denmark-independent

 

"Scientist/engineer Hillary Sillitto and two other Edinburgh-based writers – another reputable scientist, Ian Godden, and a nurse-turned-entrepreneur, Dorothy Godden – have published an online edition of their book, Scotland 2070, which aims to rectify what the writers identify as “the poor quality and short-term perspective of Scotland’s political debate”. Avowedly detached from political parties, they warn against conventional solutions such as inward investment and low corporate taxes: the first is a poor substitute for the development of local industry, and the second is already well-catered for by Ireland.

 

Instead they propose that Scotland looks north rather than south, to the Arctic’s melting icecap and the new east-west sea route that will open up off the northern coasts of Russia, shortening the traditional voyage via Suez between (say) Yokohama and Rotterdam by nearly 5000 nautical miles. “Within 25 years,” they write, “Scotland will be on the doorstep of a major new global trading passage and a new economic region in the Arctic.”

 

The old naval anchorage in the Orkneys, Scapa Flow, could be filled again with shipping as “a container port and transit facility to rival Singapore” – the centrepiece of a six-point plan that also includes planting Scotland with 5bn trees; adopting new farming techniques that reduce the atmosphere’s carbon content; exporting renewable energy and technology; and, perhaps the hardest to achieve, transforming Scottish industry by doubling university spending on research and development. They say that with hard work and proper funding over the next 50 years, Scottish manufacturing could recover from its near total destruction by globalisation and under-investment".

[doverfox]

22 hours ago, bovril said:

She has a reasonably impressive CV. It is fascinating how seemingly intelligent people can write the dippiest shit on twitter. 

It is amazing how many very academicly clever people lack common sense.

[Finnaldo]

It’s interesting, looking at the Super League conversation, how everyone is united in standing against corruption of the highest earners trying to ring fence themselves off from the rest, and that it’s recognised that this is at the expense of all those below them. That we should now be looking at properly penalising those who actively and purpose act against the interest of the game as a whole, and should instead be splitting the wealth of the game equitably to not only to the rest in the highest tier, but also all the way down to the poorest and smallest earners, because it’s recognised that ultimately, they are who develop the talent before the higher tiers even see it. Pretty interesting one of the more popular reforms is majority ownership by those supporters who are recognised as the soul of the club, rather than selling off to rich domestic and foreign entities with shadowy interests. That it’s the common man who should own and govern these institutions. 
 

Pretty interesting, I reckon. 

[Kopfkino]

39 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

It’s interesting, looking at the Super League conversation, how everyone is united in standing against corruption of the highest earners trying to ring fence themselves off from the rest, and that it’s recognised that this is at the expense of all those below them. That we should now be looking at properly penalising those who actively and purpose act against the interest of the game as a whole, and should instead be splitting the wealth of the game equitably to not only to the rest in the highest tier, but also all the way down to the poorest and smallest earners, because it’s recognised that ultimately, they are who develop the talent before the higher tiers even see it. Pretty interesting one of the more popular reforms is majority ownership by those supporters who are recognised as the soul of the club, rather than selling off to rich domestic and foreign entities with shadowy interests. That it’s the common man who should own and govern these institutions. 
 

Pretty interesting, I reckon. 

Attitude towards football is often an interesting prism to view these things. Maybe I overestimate this because I say this as someone for whom football (and a whole lot of boredom) was a route into finding post-liberal thought a lot more persuasive.

 

For example, people who will often be quite progressive and show little regard for norms and institutions valued by conservatives in political terms can then be really protective of football norms like 3pm Saturday kick offs. Or, no doubt, within any fan base there is sizeable chunk that is queasy about patriotism, national identity and flags that push that aside when it comes to football.

 

Of course, seemingly inconsistent principles do make sense often, but it’d be good if people did take a step back and reflect on what they truly believe rather than what they want themselves to believe/have been persuaded into believing.

[Finnaldo]

10 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Attitude towards football is often an interesting prism to view these things. Maybe I overestimate this because I say this as someone for whom football (and a whole lot of boredom) was a route into finding post-liberal thought a lot more persuasive.

 

For example, people who will often be quite progressive and show little regard for norms and institutions valued by conservatives in political terms can then be really protective of football norms like 3pm Saturday kick offs. Or, no doubt, within any fan base there is sizeable chunk that is queasy about patriotism, national identity and flags that push that aside when it comes to football.

 

Of course, seemingly inconsistent principles do make sense often, but it’d be good if people did take a step back and reflect on what they truly believe rather than what they want themselves to believe/have been persuaded into believing.

My comment was supposed to be a bit off-hand, but all good points you’ve made nonetheless.

[LiberalFox]

As a rule people are happy for other people to give up their traditions and be forced into changing but unhappy at being asked to do the same. 

[Mike Oxlong]

Just seen that Dyson have a new Arcuri model coming out 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Buy a Henry hoover. Made in Britain by a unionised workforce.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

6 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Just seen that Dyson have a new Arcuri model coming out 

 

Think I need to start posting polls again if this is deemed alright for FT 

[Strokes]

5 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Buy a Henry hoover. Made in Britain by a unionised workforce.

Henrietta all the way you sexist nazi pig.

Edited 21 April 2021 by Strokes

[CosbehFox]

Interesting take by the Sun today - wouldn’t have thought they would be the paper to publish Cummings v Johnson 

[Alf Bentley]

On 21/04/2021 at 22:17, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Think I need to start posting polls again if this is deemed alright for FT 

 

A bit of humour at the expense of politicians of any party is always welcome, I think.

Some reprobate posted an amusing "Starmer is Morrissey" lookalike the other day, as I recall (I'm sure @Sharpe's Foxwould say they've both taken a turn to the right). 

 

Personally, I like polls - but only in moderation or if they're showing something new or of immediate relevance.

I mean, anyone with any interest in politics will have been aware that Labour bounced back in last year's national polls, the Tories have surged nationally this year - and we're unlikely to have a national election for 2-3 years.

 

If you spot any polls for Hartlepool or the West Midlands or Tees Valley mayoral elections, I'd be interested - even though I'd expect them to be bad for Labour. Likewise, for the crucial Scottish parliamentary elections.

 

In the meantime, here's a poll showing a Tory collapse in Wales (though Labour still set to need an alliance with Plaid to continue in devolved govt): 

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-04-22/exclusive-poll-shows-labour-can-hold-red-wall-but-still-needs-to-strike-deal-in-senedd

 

Here's what the poll found for the constituencies, with the shift in support since the last poll shown in brackets:

• Labour                      35% (+3%)             

• Conservative            24% (-6%)             

• Plaid Cymru.            24% (+1%)            

• Reform UK                4% (+1%)                              

• Abolish the Assembly 3% (no change)                   

• Lib Dems                   3% (-2%)               

• Green                        3% (+1%)

[CosbehFox]

Labour have fcuked up with their choice for West Mids mayor. Picked a controversial figure in Liam Byrne. 

 

The Tories recent wins in West Mids have in part supported by the West Mids mayor being a Tory. The ability to push money in certain areas and then turn up with a MP or Tory candidate has been highly useful. Particularly when it comes to the transport strategy that's been pushed here. 

 

I'll give Andy Street, the Tory Mayor, his dues though - he's more of a traditional politician rather than a popularist, tweeting ego. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

If you spot any polls for Hartlepool or the West Midlands or Tees Valley mayoral elections, I'd be interested.

 

 

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Personally, I like polls - but only in moderation or if they're showing something new or of immediate relevance.

Latest YouGov poll shows a fightback from Labour, up 5 points - but still 10 behind - although the previous YG poll (with Cons 14 points ahead) was considered an outlier.

 

 

Generally it seems those left-of-centre consider the polls since late January to be "just a vaccine bounce" but that would seem a hell of a long bounce.

 

cheers,

Jeff

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

 

Latest YouGov poll shows a fightback from Labour, up 5 points - but still 10 behind - although the previous YG poll (with Cons 14 points ahead) was considered an outlier.

 

 

Generally it seems those left-of-centre consider the polls since late January to be "just a vaccine bounce" but that would seem a hell of a long bounce.

 

cheers,

Jeff

 

Given the national polls, I'd be surprised if Labour won any of West Midlands, Hartlepool and Tees Valley - and was pleasantly surprised by that Welsh poll (maybe the devolved Welsh Labour Govt is also getting a "vaccine bounce").

 

I don't follow W. Midlands politics but Street comes across well to me (as a non-Tory). I don't know much about Byrne, except that he was a Blair/Brown minister & the one who left that note at the Treasury in 2010 to say "sorry, all the money's gone" (silly joke, but I bet he can't believe how much that's been used against him). That W. Midlands vote might be close after vote transfers, though, as Byrne could get more of the 11% LD/Green votes than Street.

 

"Just a vaccine bounce" might be simplistic - and complacent from a Labour perspective. But I do think the shift in the polls - and probably in the May results - is down to a more optimistic public mood, which might not last. I'm not sure Labour or Starmer are doing much different compared to 2020. The difference is that in 2020, the main focus was the govt's shambolic response to Covid - and Tory/Johnson poll ratings suffered. In 2021, the focus is on vaccine success and the winding-down of lockdown - and Tory/Johnson poll ratings have benefited. 

 

What is complacent is for anyone to assume that the Tory "bounce" will inevitably be short-lived. It might be short-lived, if other important stuff goes wrong - and there's ample scope for that (economic problems, jobs, public services, Brexit issues, Covid resurgence etc.). But it's not inevitable. Important things might go well for the Govt, through luck or good judgment.

 

Some blame Starmer because he's dull or they're not clear what he stands for or he hasn't criticised the govt enough. That's mainly unfair, I think. I don't think voters would've been impressed if he'd spent the pandemic presenting dreams that could only be relevant once the pandemic was over or had slagged the govt much more than he did. The Govt had a very difficult political job, due to Covid, but the Opposition had an almost impossible electoral job due to Covid and then vaccine/lockdown success.

 

Assuming Covid fades into the background a bit, the next year will be crucial for both parties in the long-run (next general election). Johnson will need to somehow maintain the current optimism in what could be difficult times. Starmer will need to ensure people are clear what he stands for. I presume that his focus on "Tory sleaze" is playing a long game to counteract the idea that Johnson is somehow everyone's amusing mate and not part of the despised "corrupt privileged elite". I'm not sure that Labour tactic will work, unless a lot of worse stuff emerges, as rightly or wrongly voters already assume most politicians are dishonest or corrupt to varying degrees.

 

 

 

[Kopfkino]

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Given the national polls, I'd be surprised if Labour won any of West Midlands, Hartlepool and Tees Valley - and was pleasantly surprised by that Welsh poll (maybe the devolved Welsh Labour Govt is also getting a "vaccine bounce").

Both those mayoral elections were very close last time and took place when Labour were twice as far behind in the polls. Incumbency is a factor and certainly I’ve heard Andy Street is well liked across the spectrum, as you mention, but it still seems pretty poor to be that far behind, not taken seriously enough and poor candidate maybe.
 

Exactly the same the other way round with London, albeit with the fundamentals almost certainly worse there for the Cons.

Sadiq Khan is truly awful (I say that have voted for him last time) but the Cons have seemingly given up on London (something they can ill afford to do), chose a terrible candidate and made no effort

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Both those mayoral elections were very close last time and took place when Labour were twice as far behind in the polls. Incumbency is a factor and certainly I’ve heard Andy Street is well liked across the spectrum, as you mention, but it still seems pretty poor to be that far behind, not taken seriously enough and poor candidate maybe.
 

Exactly the same the other way round with London, albeit with the fundamentals almost certainly worse there for the Cons.

Sadiq Khan is truly awful (I say that have voted for him last time) but the Cons have seemingly given up on London (something they can ill afford to do), chose a terrible candidate and made no effort

Out of interest, what’s so bad about Sadiq Khan? You’re not the first person I’ve heard describe him as useless, but he’s kind of off my radar to the point where I don’t have any particular opinions of him. All I really remember when I think of him are the competing blimp balloons of him and Trump.

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Both those mayoral elections were very close last time and took place when Labour were twice as far behind in the polls. Incumbency is a factor and certainly I’ve heard Andy Street is well liked across the spectrum, as you mention, but it still seems pretty poor to be that far behind, not taken seriously enough and poor candidate maybe.
 

Exactly the same the other way round with London, albeit with the fundamentals almost certainly worse there for the Cons.

Sadiq Khan is truly awful (I say that have voted for him last time) but the Cons have seemingly given up on London (something they can ill afford to do), chose a terrible candidate and made no effort

 

Out of curiosity, what do you find awful about Sadiq Khan? Has he had particular policy failures?

As I don't live in London, I only have a superficial impression, but as with Street he comes across quite well to me, compared to many Westminster politicians of every party.

 

In West Mids, as well as the factors you mention and the current mood of vaccine optimism, maybe Labour is polling more poorly than you'd expect because it includes a number of "red wall" areas where the Tories got good swings in 2019 (Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Coventry etc.)?

[Buce]

 

Cummings knifing Johnson's back over leak cover-up:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/23/dominic-cummings-launches-attack-on-boris-johnson

 

 

Dominic Cummings has launched an unprecedented and extraordinary attack on Boris Johnson, alleging the prime minister tried to quash a leak inquiry as it implicated an ally.

A day after anonymous No 10 sources said Cummings leaked texts between Johnson and the billionaire James Dyson, the prime minister’s former chief aide denied the charge, also claiming Johnson had tried to have Tory donors pay for renovations to his Downing Street flat.

 

“It is sad to see the PM and his office fall so far below the standards of competence and integrity the country deserves,” Cummings said in a post on his personal blog.

Such a damning intervention by the man who was Johnson’s key ally and ideological inspiration will alarm the prime minister and his aides, not least in case Cummings chooses to make any more claims.

Cummings, who left Downing Street in November, dismissed the accusation in the anonymous briefing to several newspapers on Thursday – which he said was done by a No 10 staffer “at the PM’s request” – that he had leaked the Dyson texts.

Cummings said he had checked his phone and had not been forwarded the messages, but that he had been told by Downing Street officials that Dyson’s office emailed screenshots of his exchanges with Johnson to a series of officials, including some at the Treasury, and that this was what had been leaked, but that he was not copied into this.

“I am happy to meet with the cabinet secretary and for him to search my phone for Dyson messages,” he wrote. “If the PM did send them to me, as he is claiming, then he will be able to show the cabinet secretary on his own phone when they were sent to me.

“I am also happy to publish or give to the cabinet secretary the PM/Dyson messages that I do have, which concerned ventilators, bureaucracy and Covid policy – not tax issues.”

The briefings on Friday identified Cummings as a serial leaker known as the “chatty rat”, who had also allegedly leaked news of another Covid lockdown last year.

In the most explosive allegation in his blogpost, Cummings alleged that in a meeting after the leak the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, told him and Johnson that “all the evidence” pointed to Henry Newman, then an adviser at the Cabinet Office, and since moved to No 10. Newman is known to be close to Carrie Symonds, Johnson’s fiancée, seen as central to Cummings’ removal from his job.

Cummings wrote: “The PM was very upset about this. He said to me afterwards, ‘If Newman is confirmed as the leaker then I will have to fire him, and this will cause me very serious problems with Carrie as they’re best friends … [pause] perhaps we could get the cabinet secretary to stop the leak inquiry?’

“I told him that this was ‘mad’ and totally unethical, that he had ordered the inquiry himself and authorised the cabinet secretary to use more invasive methods than are usually applied to leak inquiries because of the seriousness of the leak.

“I told him that he could not possibly cancel an inquiry about a leak that affected millions of people, just because it might implicate his girlfriend’s friends.”

Cummings said he then warned some officials about Johnson’s plans, saying they would give evidence under oath to an inquiry, adding: “I also have WhatsApp messages with very senior officials about this matter which are definitive.”

Finally, Cummings said he had warned Johnson about renovations to his flat, saying: “I told him I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended.”

Cummings said the issues needed to be handled by “an urgent parliamentary inquiry into the government’s conduct over the Covid crisis”.

He concluded: “Issues concerning Covid and/or the PM’s conduct should not be handled as No 10 has handled them over the past 24 hours. I will cooperate fully with any such inquiry and am happy to give evidence under oath.”

Edited 23 April 2021 by Buce