@alienfromzog thank you for that. I think that's an astute analysis. Since most of us are not like that, it leaves us very vulnerable to being exploited by people who are.
If you've found that a person cannot be trusted, it's essential to keep reminding yourself of this, flagging it up in your mind each time they open their mouth.
Technically they can be members of the House of Lords, but it has been thought for some time (several decades) that that is no longer practical politics. IIRC the last person suggested for that was Lord Halifax in 1940.
Lord Hume in 1963 was the first PM since Adam was a boy to be a member of the Lords. Of course he then renounced his peerage and obtained a seat in the Commons. In the short period in between, he was a member of neither house.
So last night shows just how contradictory Boorish is. He got his deal approved in principle (bad though it is) and then complained that Parliament doesn’t want to rush it through. He said he will go to the EU and say I’m not playing with them any more. It is time for his supper and a bedtime story. If he behaves in this way nanny will take Brexit off him.
Technically they can be members of the House of Lords, but it has been thought for some time (several decades) that that is no longer practical politics. IIRC the last person suggested for that was Lord Halifax in 1940.
Lord Hume in 1963 was the first PM since Adam was a boy to be a member of the Lords. Of course he then renounced his peerage and obtained a seat in the Commons. In the short period in between, he was a member of neither house.
Yes. I couldn’t quite remember about Lord Hume. I think from the moment of his appointment there was an understanding that he’d seek a seat in the HoC.
Yes - Macmillan makes that clear in his autobiography. A bit ironic - a piece of legislation introduced with the principal intended beneficiary in the short term being a Labour Party member who sought to return to the Commons being used to enable a Tory Earl to become Prime Minister.
I believe there were several people who took advantage of the ability to renounce peerages as soon as it was law.
I've read the biography of the 2nd life of Lord Curzon, and I know that in 1923 he was stopped from becoming PM partly because of Conservative party internal machinations, and partly because he was a peer, and the main opposition was by that time the Labour party who of course were rather under-represented in the Lords.
The person I was thinking of was later called Tony Benn. Not 100% sure, but from memory another early disclaimer was Quintin Hogg and there was a 4th, a bit of a Tory rebel and a thorn in the side of Macmillan and Eden, but whose name I've forgotten.
The person I was thinking of was later called Tony Benn. Not 100% sure, but from memory another early disclaimer was Quintin Hogg and there was a 4th, a bit of a Tory rebel and a thorn in the side of Macmillan and Eden, but whose name I've forgotten.
John Grigg (formerly Lord Altrincham) was the second person to renounce their peerage. He had previously refused to take up his seat in the Lords.
I believe there were several people who took advantage of the ability to renounce peerages as soon as it was law.
I've read the biography of the 2nd life of Lord Curzon, and I know that in 1923 he was stopped from becoming PM partly because of Conservative party internal machinations, and partly because he was a peer, and the main opposition was by that time the Labour party who of course were rather under-represented in the Lords.
There's been a bit of an argument in the years since 1923, about whose verdict it was, but by the late 1960s, when I was taught constitutional stuff, it was already regarded as binding precedent for the Prime Minister having to lead from the Commons. He or she could not do so from the Lords. This had been confirmed by the events already referred to in 1963.
I've never heard of this ruling's being attributed to the Labour Party's objections. It's usually been attributed to the machinations of the senior figures in the Conservative Party, to Lord Stamfordham (George V's Private Secretary) or to George V himself.
Remember that until after the 1963 handover, the Conservative Party had no formal process for selecting its leader if there was change of PM when it was the party in government. It was done by a sort of osmosis where it wasn't clear to those involved, yet alone the public, whether the Queen was being expected to do their choosing for them.
"Tony" Benn didn't renounce the title, only his own use of it and his own right to take his seat in the House of Lords. As soon as he died (before the funeral) his son Stephen had put in motion the necessary wheels for him to become the 3rd Viscount Stansgate.
Or as some wits commented at the time, principle is being like Grigg: giving up the title not only for yourself but for any heirs. Red principle is giving up the title for yourself but keeping the money that goes with it.
"Tony" Benn didn't renounce the title, only his own use of it and his own right to take his seat in the House of Lords. As soon as he died (before the funeral) his son Stephen had put in motion the necessary wheels for him to become the 3rd Viscount Stansgate.
Or as some wits commented at the time, principle is being like Grigg: giving up the title not only for yourself but for any heirs. Red principle is giving up the title for yourself but keeping the money that goes with it.
Ah yes, the famous principle that you can only be a socialist if you're poor. But of course if you're poor and a socialist you're guilty of the "politics of envy". Heads they win, tails you lose.
"Tony" Benn didn't renounce the title, only his own use of it and his own right to take his seat in the House of Lords. As soon as he died (before the funeral) his son Stephen had put in motion the necessary wheels for him to become the 3rd Viscount Stansgate.
Or as some wits commented at the time, principle is being like Grigg: giving up the title not only for yourself but for any heirs. Red principle is giving up the title for yourself but keeping the money that goes with it.
Ah yes, the famous principle that you can only be a socialist if you're poor. But of course if you're poor and a socialist you're guilty of the "politics of envy". Heads they win, tails you lose.
I'm too sensitive for all this - I can't believe it can happen to our country. When I was in Scotland last week I called a friend in London, and the first thing he said was. "If you use the 'B' word or mention Pifflejohnson, I'm hanging up!" He'd had it, too.
But I am fucking fuming. Seriously there is no justification for any MP voting for that Business motion, let along Boris-the-scheming-bastard introducing it.
"Tony" Benn didn't renounce the title, only his own use of it and his own right to take his seat in the House of Lords. As soon as he died (before the funeral) his son Stephen had put in motion the necessary wheels for him to become the 3rd Viscount Stansgate.
Or as some wits commented at the time, principle is being like Grigg: giving up the title not only for yourself but for any heirs. Red principle is giving up the title for yourself but keeping the money that goes with it.
For once, @TheOrganist I think you may be being unfair there. Whether it's different now, I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure that when it was introduced, you could only renounce a title for your own lifetime. You could not take it away from your descendants as well.
When you've gone, they get the right to decide for themselves.
The person I was thinking of was later called Tony Benn. Not 100% sure, but from memory another early disclaimer was Quintin Hogg and there was a 4th, a bit of a Tory rebel and a thorn in the side of Macmillan and Eden, but whose name I've forgotten.
John Grigg (formerly Lord Altrincham) was the second person to renounce their peerage. He had previously refused to take up his seat in the Lords.
Thanks, comes back to me. He also advocated a republic IIRC. And I suppose that the better phrase is renouncing the use of the title.
Back to the subject of The Great Panjandrum, Boorish the Terrible, Destroyer of Worlds...
It looks as though we will NOT be out of the EU today (yes, yes - I know - there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip), but I wonder how soon it will be before Our Glorious Leader fulfils at least one of his pledges, and 'lays him doon tae dee' in a drainage channel?
Not that I wish him any physical harm, of course, as TIACW.
Back to the subject of The Great Panjandrum, Boorish the Terrible, Destroyer of Worlds...
It looks as though we will NOT be out of the EU today (yes, yes - I know - there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip), but I wonder how soon it will be before Our Glorious Leader fulfils at least one of his pledges, and 'lays him doon tae dee' in a drainage channel?
Not that I wish him any physical harm, of course, as TIACW.
With the kind of rain parts of the UK have been experiencing I wouldn't think you would want anything blocking a drainage channel.
Back to the subject of The Great Panjandrum, Boorish the Terrible, Destroyer of Worlds...
It looks as though we will NOT be out of the EU today (yes, yes - I know - there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip), but I wonder how soon it will be before Our Glorious Leader fulfils at least one of his pledges, and 'lays him doon tae dee' in a drainage channel?
Not that I wish him any physical harm, of course, as TIACW.
With the kind of rain parts of the UK have been experiencing I wouldn't think you would want anything blocking a drainage channel.
Depends, if he can be deployed to keep the river in its main course that could be useful. Need to shovel him full of sand first, of course, all that hot air makes him to buoyant otherwise.
de Pfeffel is so incompetent that he laid a wreath at the cenotaph upside down.
It's just another example (of many) where he has messed up a simple task. He can’t answer a simple question, ever - without extreme mumbling and bumbling.
And some say he is clever. Reciting a bit of Latin and knowing some classical quotes does not intelligence make.
"Why won't you release the report on Russian interference in our elections?"
"Why have the Tories accepted money from Russian oligarchs with close ties to the Kremlin?"
"Are you a Russian state asset?"
"Why can't you lay a wreath the right way up?"
"Why won't you come clean about your dealings with Jennifer Arcuri?"
"How many children do you have?"
Pretty certain I could reduce Johnson to incoherence in 5 mins flat. No reason for Corbyn not to.
He's not as slick as he thinks he is, and not terribly good in an 'off the cuff' situation. As Foreign Minister he had a bad habit of not helping international relations when asked questions rather than reading from a speech.
I believe the good citizens of Matlock were a bit sceptical about his visit on Friday after the flooding viz whether it was as PM or a chance to score some party political points: he was in the area as he'd been campaigning over the border in Nottinghamshire, so it made sense for him to visit then, but it was a close call whether his comments about funding for recovery was money any government would dish out or a campaign pledge.
de Pfeffel is so incompetent that he laid a wreath at the cenotaph upside down.
I've seen this a few times now and assumed it was a joke. Can you imagine the tabloids had Corbyn done that? The absurd fuss they made over whether he bowed enough 3 years ago and yet utter silence on this utter carelessness on the part of the PM.
EDIT: in an effort to distract from ABdPJ's screw ups they're trying to go after Corbyn for the same thing again. FFS.
The absurd fuss they made over whether he bowed enough 3 years ago and yet utter silence on this utter carelessness on the part of the PM.
I call bullshit. One quick google suggests at least the Mirror, Metro, and the Express are all carrying the story, at least online.
BBC Breakfast managed to edit the footage and splice in a previous year's ceremony where Johnson was deputising for May. So you wouldn't have seen it there.
The absurd fuss they made over whether he bowed enough 3 years ago and yet utter silence on this utter carelessness on the part of the PM.
I call bullshit. One quick google suggests at least the Mirror, Metro, and the Express are all carrying the story, at least online.
BBC Breakfast managed to edit the footage and splice in a previous year's ceremony where Johnson was deputising for May. So you wouldn't have seen it there.
There are a lot of ex-BBC employees over on twitter expressing their scepticism at that, and how much more work it would have been to call the wrong footage from the archive, edit it into the previous day's events, when all of the previous day's events are literally there on the hard drive.
To conclude: Johnson was probably hung over and hadn't had time to dress himself properly, then fucked up the actual wreath laying ceremony ("You had one job") by both stepping out of line and then putting it upside down. The BBC edited the footage to cover his actions.
I thought it was footage from when he was unfortunately Foreign Secretary and therefore had the fantastic wreath of Overseas Territories flowers and foliage (with help from Kew Gardens).
I have only just learned the term Gish Gallop, on another thread, but every time I see de Pfeffel on TV he seems to be dishing out a verbal version of this.
By the time he’s galloped past spreading his shit everyone is on to another subject.
What has surprised me is how poor a speaker Boris is. I thought he would be passionate and so on, but he looks terrified, and keeps gulping for air, and produces inane sound-bites, e.g., a Blue Peter Brexit. Vacuity, vacuity.
It’s the Peter principle, sort of. I say sort of because Boris was already incompetent as foreign secretary, but he’s now failed upwards to the point where his incompetence can’t be hidden anymore and there’s no one to hide behind.
It’s the Peter principle, sort of. I say sort of because Boris was already incompetent as foreign secretary, but he’s now failed upwards to the point where his incompetence can’t be hidden anymore and there’s no one to hide behind.
But remember he wants a Pot Noodle Brexit. The common touch, clever, eh?
What has surprised me is how poor a speaker Boris is. I thought he would be passionate and so on, but he looks terrified, and keeps gulping for air, and produces inane sound-bites, e.g., a Blue Peter Brexit. Vacuity, vacuity.
I think he’s on something. He looked hung over at the cenotaph.
Comments
If you've found that a person cannot be trusted, it's essential to keep reminding yourself of this, flagging it up in your mind each time they open their mouth.
Lord Hume in 1963 was the first PM since Adam was a boy to be a member of the Lords. Of course he then renounced his peerage and obtained a seat in the Commons. In the short period in between, he was a member of neither house.
Yes. I couldn’t quite remember about Lord Hume. I think from the moment of his appointment there was an understanding that he’d seek a seat in the HoC.
I've read the biography of the 2nd life of Lord Curzon, and I know that in 1923 he was stopped from becoming PM partly because of Conservative party internal machinations, and partly because he was a peer, and the main opposition was by that time the Labour party who of course were rather under-represented in the Lords.
John Grigg (formerly Lord Altrincham) was the second person to renounce their peerage. He had previously refused to take up his seat in the Lords.
I've never heard of this ruling's being attributed to the Labour Party's objections. It's usually been attributed to the machinations of the senior figures in the Conservative Party, to Lord Stamfordham (George V's Private Secretary) or to George V himself.
Remember that until after the 1963 handover, the Conservative Party had no formal process for selecting its leader if there was change of PM when it was the party in government. It was done by a sort of osmosis where it wasn't clear to those involved, yet alone the public, whether the Queen was being expected to do their choosing for them.
Or as some wits commented at the time, principle is being like Grigg: giving up the title not only for yourself but for any heirs. Red principle is giving up the title for yourself but keeping the money that goes with it.
Ah yes, the famous principle that you can only be a socialist if you're poor. But of course if you're poor and a socialist you're guilty of the "politics of envy". Heads they win, tails you lose.
https://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2014/11/champagne-socialism-makes-me-very-cross.html
https://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2019/10/writing-to-my-mp.html
Strongly worded? Yes.
But I am fucking fuming. Seriously there is no justification for any MP voting for that Business motion, let along Boris-the-scheming-bastard introducing it.
Utterly Shameful.
AFZ
When you've gone, they get the right to decide for themselves.
Thanks, comes back to me. He also advocated a republic IIRC. And I suppose that the better phrase is renouncing the use of the title.
It looks as though we will NOT be out of the EU today (yes, yes - I know - there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip), but I wonder how soon it will be before Our Glorious Leader fulfils at least one of his pledges, and 'lays him doon tae dee' in a drainage channel?
Not that I wish him any physical harm, of course, as TIACW.
I say that in Christian Love™, of course.
I always thought BoJo was more of a Dalek than a Dr of any kind!
O for the day. How long, O Lord, how long?
Daleks can fly sorry. Boris hopefully will flop
With the kind of rain parts of the UK have been experiencing I wouldn't think you would want anything blocking a drainage channel.
Depends, if he can be deployed to keep the river in its main course that could be useful. Need to shovel him full of sand first, of course, all that hot air makes him to buoyant otherwise.
It's just another example (of many) where he has messed up a simple task. He can’t answer a simple question, ever - without extreme mumbling and bumbling.
And some say he is clever. Reciting a bit of Latin and knowing some classical quotes does not intelligence make.
When will his supporters learn this?
"Why have the Tories accepted money from Russian oligarchs with close ties to the Kremlin?"
"Are you a Russian state asset?"
"Why can't you lay a wreath the right way up?"
"Why won't you come clean about your dealings with Jennifer Arcuri?"
"How many children do you have?"
Pretty certain I could reduce Johnson to incoherence in 5 mins flat. No reason for Corbyn not to.
I believe the good citizens of Matlock were a bit sceptical about his visit on Friday after the flooding viz whether it was as PM or a chance to score some party political points: he was in the area as he'd been campaigning over the border in Nottinghamshire, so it made sense for him to visit then, but it was a close call whether his comments about funding for recovery was money any government would dish out or a campaign pledge.
I've seen this a few times now and assumed it was a joke. Can you imagine the tabloids had Corbyn done that? The absurd fuss they made over whether he bowed enough 3 years ago and yet utter silence on this utter carelessness on the part of the PM.
EDIT: in an effort to distract from ABdPJ's screw ups they're trying to go after Corbyn for the same thing again. FFS.
I call bullshit. One quick google suggests at least the Mirror, Metro, and the Express are all carrying the story, at least online.
I'll concede not utter silence. I'm sure it wasn't front page news and cries of shame accompanied by fulminating editorials.
BBC Breakfast managed to edit the footage and splice in a previous year's ceremony where Johnson was deputising for May. So you wouldn't have seen it there.
Wow - really?
There are a lot of ex-BBC employees over on twitter expressing their scepticism at that, and how much more work it would have been to call the wrong footage from the archive, edit it into the previous day's events, when all of the previous day's events are literally there on the hard drive.
To conclude: Johnson was probably hung over and hadn't had time to dress himself properly, then fucked up the actual wreath laying ceremony ("You had one job") by both stepping out of line and then putting it upside down. The BBC edited the footage to cover his actions.
By the time he’s galloped past spreading his shit everyone is on to another subject.
Rinse and repeat ...
But remember he wants a Pot Noodle Brexit. The common touch, clever, eh?
I think he’s on something. He looked hung over at the cenotaph.