Let me make it clear; the Treeza Rant thread

18911131437

Comments

  • Credit also to Corbyn who made the point that a homeless man had recently died outside parliament. It was reported but with less noise than the Commons panto.
  • Having bothered to see if I could see the difference between woman and people when I said them, it's not that clear. I'm not sure that lip readers could be sure.
  • As goperryrevs pointed out, it's also affected by style of pronunciation. If you say "woman" as in a 1950s broadcast by the queen, your lips might well make the position for /w/ that is shaped round, like an /o/. However, in casual speech, and especially when muttering, this is more relaxed. This is hard to teach in English as a foreign language.
  • As goperryrevs pointed out, it's also affected by style of pronunciation. If you say "woman" as in a 1950s broadcast by the queen, your lips might well make the position for /w/ that is shaped round, like an /o/. However, in casual speech, and especially when muttering, this is more relaxed. This is hard to teach in English as a foreign language.

    Yeah, and to me his mouth definitely stays wide the whole time. There's no 'o' shape at all. But still, that doesn't mean he didn't say 'woman'. It's his response afterwards that makes me believe him, though.
    Lip-reading experts have claimed with certainty that he said 'Stupid woman.' Other lip-reading experts have claimed with equal certainty that he said 'Stupid people.'

    If they're claiming with certainty either way, it strikes me that they're probably not experts after all. People's responses to this are interesting from a social / human perspective. But it still sucks that it's a news story. Oh, for a balanced press.
  • If they're claiming with certainty either way, it strikes me that they're probably not experts after all.

    Yep, that thought occurred to me too. Experts are never certain, just understand probability much better. I think that applies to all disciplines - it certainly applies to mine (surgery).

    What I probably should have said was that experts are being quoted as certain both ways.... either way, my point was that there is no categorical evidence that he said one thing and not the other.

    AFZ
  • Frankly I don't care what he may or may not have said. I do care that our MPs have gone on holiday with less than 100 days to go and no solution in sight. (Apart from the one they keep telling us is the one they don't want because it's terrible but, unless they get their act together, is the most likely).
  • This.
  • And, there isn't even 100 days. More like 30-40 days - a deal needs to be accepted by Parliament with sufficient time for the rest of the EU nations to debate and vote on it. Without Parliament having an agreed deal (ie: the one that's on the table) by the end of January there are only two options available - a no-deal Brexit or a request to extend Article 50 (I'm going to assume that the current pantomime cast that calls itself a government will never sanction withdrawing Article 50).
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    You wouldn't expect the Mother of Parliaments to recognise the constraints on other parliaments would you? Oh no you wouldn't! Oh yes you would! Oh no you wouldn't .....

    How many pantomime horses are there in Westminster?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Dunno about horses, but there are plenty of toddlers in the House of Kindergarten.

    I hope Santa (no disrespect or harm intended towards that venerable Saint) gets stuck in their chimneys, and covers their Christmas dinner in soot.....
    :tongue:

    *sings*

    All I want for Christmas is a new front bench.....
  • I like that nobody is disputing the word stupid. Whatever else he said, that's an undeniable truth.
  • :lol:

    Many a true word is spoken in jest (or in exasperation...)...

    QED.

    Happy Holidays, House of Toddlers! Play nicely, now!

    (And to think we not only elect these wretched children, but pay them lots of pocket-money, too).
  • I don't think most of them would even know how to play nicely.
  • Alas, all too true. What a shower of useless drips....
    :angry:
  • And little coverage of the Tory mp *barking* (yes, literally) at a female snp mp - that really is misogynistic as in stupid bitch.
  • Perhaps we should call for any MP who has unambiguously behaved in a manner unbecoming of their position as a representative of the people in their constituency to be dismissed from Parliament, forcing a byelection. Get rid of those who bark at others, who call others names, who jeer and boo, who refuse to answer straight questions etc.
  • But....this is StupidToryLand....there will be no meaningful media coverage of anything that does not laud and glorify StupidTories....
    :confounded:
  • Perhaps we should call for any MP who has unambiguously behaved in a manner unbecoming of their position as a representative of the people in their constituency to be dismissed from Parliament, forcing a byelection. Get rid of those who bark at others, who call others names, who jeer and boo, who refuse to answer straight questions etc.

    That would empty the house, pretty much.
  • And little coverage of the Tory mp *barking* (yes, literally) at a female snp mp - that really is misogynistic as in stupid bitch.
    Is that another one, or is it still Nicholas Soames' idiocy from last year? BBC report on his apology.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Soames is a relation of Winston Churchill, who, for all his faults, would surely not have sunk so low.

    Mind you, in wartime, and without benefit of clergy, TV, and the internet who knows? At least Churchill was not afraid of mincing his words....and Soames did, at least offer a reasonably gracious apology.

    ETA - I AM NOT A TORY!! Please do not cart me off to the guillotine or whatever...
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    What am I saying?

    It's not me who needs the guillotine, but Them ! Let the Tumbrils roll! Let the Knitting-Needles click!

    I'll get me coat.....if one of you would kindly untie the string. Thanks!
  • Perhaps we should call for any MP who has unambiguously behaved in a manner unbecoming of their position as a representative of the people in their constituency to be dismissed from Parliament, forcing a byelection. Get rid of those who bark at others, who call others names, who jeer and boo, who refuse to answer straight questions etc.

    That would empty the house, pretty much.

    I seem to remember a rather satirical article somewhere which described an array of people (600+), many of whom were under investigation for wife-beating, corruption, money-laundering, expenses-fiddling, lying, speeding/drink-driving, sexual irregularities etc. etc.

    They were, of course, all UK Members of 'Parliament'.
  • And little coverage of the Tory mp *barking* (yes, literally) at a female snp mp - that really is misogynistic as in stupid bitch.
    Is that another one, or is it still Nicholas Soames' idiocy from last year? BBC report on his apology.


    I had thought it was a new one, but actually I think the mp who mentioned it this week was referring back to that incident.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    I wonder if it might be in the national interest for our 'government' to simply shut down for a while, as in the US of A at the moment?

    That is, if the Civil Service (which actually runs the country, as enny fule kno) continues to function as per usual.

    IYSWIM.

    Or, to put it another way, is it really in our national interest to continue to pay and support the House of Toddlers? Maybe those who wish to serve as MPs should be prepared to do so voluntarily, without payment, apart from a very limited emolument for 'expenses' (such as a bus pass, or whatever).

    I rather resent my taxes being partially spent on a bunch of incompetent nitwits, who would be boo'ed off the stage at any self-respecting pantomime!
  • I wonder if it might be in the national interest for our 'government' to simply shut down for a while, as in the US of A at the moment?

    That is, if the Civil Service (which actually runs the country, as enny fule kno) continues to function as per usual.

    IYSWIM.

    Or, to put it another way, is it really in our national interest to continue to pay and support the House of Toddlers? Maybe those who wish to serve as MPs should be prepared to do so voluntarily, without payment, apart from a very limited emolument for 'expenses' (such as a bus pass, or whatever).

    I rather resent my taxes being partially spent on a bunch of incompetent nitwits, who would be boo'ed off the stage at any self-respecting pantomime!

    Except that this means you end up with only rich people able to be MPs and exclude normal people even more than at present. An enforceable code of conduct and a job description with some evaluation of performance might be more helpful; though probably not.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Yes. Not paying MPs means that only the Jacob Rees-Moggs of this world can afford to go is n on their own account. Others would then have to depend on suitably flexible paying day jobs, or sponsorship.
  • There are significant issues with MPs having income sources apart from their salary as an MP. Forcing them to rely on such other sources - whether another job or sponsored by some other organisation - compounds those problems. Maybe we could go for a performance related pay deal, with the judgement of whether they have earnt their pay for the month being put in the hands of their constituents (maybe a committee of elected councillors from the local authority their constituency is in) based on how well they've done for their constituents - how they've responded to people contacting them, how often they've been in their surgeries, how much time they've spent in the Commons chamber, committees, on recognised visits etc, and on their conduct and whether it reflects well on the people who voted them in.
  • Enforceable code of conduct, job description, and if they want the taxpayer to pay for their accommodation in London they get it on the same terms as recipients of Housing Benefit. And they only get to claim expenses for trips away from their normal place of work, just as everyone else (their normal places of work being their constituency AND the Houses of Parliament). And if they wish to accept other jobs (such as one of those fancy directorships where you get paid megabucks for converting oxygen into carbon dioxide at two meetings a year) they must present evidence that (a) there is no conflict of interest and (b) it will not interfere with their duties as an MP.

    And the House of Lords should be reformed and turned into a proper second chamber instead of a club for aristocratic relics and retired politicians. Perhaps members of the Lords could be elected for ten years, or selected from a pool of qualified citizens in the same way that jurors are chosen. Ironic that the Lords seem to have more concern for the common people in this fiasco than the Commons.
  • Interesting comments, all.

    Maybe an Anarchy, but only under a wise and benevolent Anarch?
    :wink:

    Or, OTOH, someone like The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Vetinari
  • A benficent dictatorship is the best option. It is so hard to organise, though.

    MPs pay - I think they should have a good salary, no expenses (maybe some small addition for those who are far away), and not allowed to earn money any other way.

    I would also insist that MPs do not have any sources of income as an MP or after that conflict with their role as an MP. That would discourage the wealthy, or at least those who want to become more and more wealthy.

    It would make the role of MP one that only those comitted to it would take. Those who are poor could afford it, those who only want to use it to make more would not be able to.
  • A problem with having no expenses is that an MP's job includes spending time in the constituency and spending time in Westminster. The geographical separation of most of these two locations means running up sizeable costs. Perhaps if there was a system where each constituency returned two MPs, one to work at home and one in central government (which in itself needn't be in London nor even in the same place all the time) then each job could be performed better and more economically.

    Calling anyone stupid is horrible and I hate it. Yes, people do stupid things and they should be pulled up on them. But calling someone stupid is hurtful and damaging.
  • That is why I would give some consideration for those who considerations are a long disatance away.

    But it is not a rigourous plan, just a concept that MPs should be focussed and dedicated to their role as MPs. They should have money that enables them to do that (and if we are talking about 80K a year, that should cover a lot of incidental costs).
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    I think we should pay mps based on some metric of the median average wage of April just passed, started off so a back benchers salary is roughly equivalent to that of the headteacher of a large school.

    So I’d estimate that as being x4 median salary and then ministers etc would get y x median salary etc. That way their pay is directly tied to the economic well being of most people, and they are never required to vote on their own pay.

    I would also include a travel warrant that gives free travel on all public transport and the national airline, for the mp spouse/partner and any dependent children. Irrespective of whether it’s personal or business travel. (Not reclaimed back from the government by the businesses involved, it’d be part of the price of doing business - a tax in kind)

    I’d have all the mp’s staff hired and managed through Palace of Westminster HR, and I wouldn’t give them expenses to claim. I’d give them a budget for their Westminster and constituency office, to spend, keep, donate to charity or whatever.

    Then we’d not need to spend on the bureaucracy of tracking expenses.

    No claims for second homes, we just provide ‘grace & favour’ homes in London to everyone whose constituency is not in London and/or within 90 mins travel time of the House of Commons. These grace & favour homes would be furnished council flats spread across the city, organised and maintained by local councils in the same way as the rest of their housing stock. Advantage of this, is again allowing mps to sample some of life as it is lived by people not at the top of the tree. Not charging for it, is the second home allowance (ie we assume mps spend the equivalent of the rent in additional expense cos they’ve got two homes).
  • I think we should pay mps based on some metric of the median average wage of April just passed, started off so a back benchers salary is roughly equivalent to that of the headteacher of a large school.

    So I’d estimate that as being x4 median salary and then ministers etc would get y x median salary etc. That way their pay is directly tied to the economic well being of most people, and they are never required to vote on their own pay.

    I would also include a travel warrant that gives free travel on all public transport and the national airline, for the mp spouse/partner and any dependent children. Irrespective of whether it’s personal or business travel. (Not reclaimed back from the government by the businesses involved, it’d be part of the price of doing business - a tax in kind)

    I’d have all the mp’s staff hired and managed through Palace of Westminster HR, and I wouldn’t give them expenses to claim. I’d give them a budget for their Westminster and constituency office, to spend, keep, donate to charity or whatever.

    Then we’d not need to spend on the bureaucracy of tracking expenses.

    No claims for second homes, we just provide ‘grace & favour’ homes in London to everyone whose constituency is not in London and/or within 90 mins travel time of the House of Commons. These grace & favour homes would be furnished council flats spread across the city, organised and maintained by local councils in the same way as the rest of their housing stock. Advantage of this, is again allowing mps to sample some of life as it is lived by people not at the top of the tree. Not charging for it, is the second home allowance (ie we assume mps spend the equivalent of the rent in additional expense cos they’ve got two homes).

    There's a case to be made that the public opinion of our democratic institutions has been seriously harmed by television coverage of debates, bringing to public gaze as never before the antics of a number of our more idiotic MPs, not excluding the Prime Minister from that condemnation.

    Faced with a real crisis in the country, they act like 16-year old Yahoos at a minor public school's debating society, lacking honesty, decency and good manners.

    The solution is not to end the tv coverage but to bar from the Chamber those MPs who behave in this way - every single one of them, ministers and back-benchers equally, escorted from the Chamber under the eyes of the cameras and shut out for 28 days for a first offence, a full year for any subsequent offence, with their parliamentary salary being docked for the period of suspension.

    That'd learn 'em!
  • A one year suspension would mean that they're unable to represent their constituents properly. That would, IMO, be grounds for triggering a by-election.
  • I would agree that anyone engaging in this sort of childish behaviour should be banned. I think the Speaker should have more power in this area, and exercise it.

    And that would definitively include senior politicians who tell lies in public. I would like to see how much of a difference it makes to the front bench if there are 3-4 of them missing most of the time.
  • Essentially, you could simply vote through a change to the conventions of the house of commons. In addition to no unparliamentary language, honourable members will be silent until the person called by the speaker has finished speaking - at which point they may applaud, or not applaud. No booing, catcalling or other inappropriate vocalisations - all members are expected to maintain an appropriate level of professional conduct. When you want to speak, raise your hand rather than yelling and waving an order paper.
  • Or, OTOH, you could simply re-incarnate the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, which would probably prove easier that trying to get the House of Fractious Toddlers to behave....

    A friend of mine refuses to bother to vote in Parliamentary elections, and, frankly, I can't blame him. Alas, the result is that the country gets the 'Parliament' it doesn't vote for.
  • A one year suspension would mean that they're unable to represent their constituents properly. That would, IMO, be grounds for triggering a by-election.

    But are these baying morons 'representing their constituents properly' at the moment? Hardly. Anyway, I'd only see them barred from the Chamber; they could - and should - still write to ministers about matters of concern to their constituents.

    Of course, they wouldn't get paid for doing this; you could think of it as Community Payback.
  • What? Treating our revered and honourable MPs as Common Criminals??

    Is Outrage!!

    Or is it?
    :grimace:
  • Andras wrote: »
    A one year suspension would mean that they're unable to represent their constituents properly. That would, IMO, be grounds for triggering a by-election.

    But are these baying morons 'representing their constituents properly' at the moment? Hardly.
    That's why I said "unable", so as not to suggest that their current ability to properly represent constituents is being exercised.

  • And in today's news, Corbyn has called for MPs to be recalled so that they can have the already-much-delayed vote; and May has accused him of 'trying to sabotage Brexit.'

    Why do I have to share my planet with that 'stupid woman'?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    She accused him because he (A) is Labour and (B) doesn’t agree with her strategy. It is a knee jerk reaction with emphasis on the Jerk
  • Recently seen this story of a Tory MP who now thinks his votes were wrong because it is impacting himself.

    On Tw*tt*r, he is getting all the sympathy you would expect. Our MPs are supposed to think through the implications of their policies BEFORE they vote. And the implications for everyone, not just themselves. That is what their FUCKING JOB is - to consider the implications for all people, at the very least all of their constituents, of their votes and actions.

    This seems like a prime example of the ridiculous state of politics today. We have dreadful politicians in a corrupt and undemocratic system. It is failing - no, it has failed.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Jesu, mercy. Mary, pray.
    :weary:

    When does the House of Toddlers reconvene? When do their Mummies and Daddies let them out to play again (or is that the Teddy Bears' Picnic)?

    Much the same thing IMHO.

    Dear God, what a miserable shower of non-entities (not all of them, in all fairness, but I don't think I'd trust any of them to organise a fry-up in a fish shop....).

  • Recently seen this story of a Tory MP who now thinks his votes were wrong because it is impacting himself.

    On Tw*tt*r, he is getting all the sympathy you would expect. Our MPs are supposed to think through the implications of their policies BEFORE they vote. And the implications for everyone, not just themselves. That is what their FUCKING JOB is - to consider the implications for all people, at the very least all of their constituents, of their votes and actions.

    This seems like a prime example of the ridiculous state of politics today. We have dreadful politicians in a corrupt and undemocratic system. It is failing - no, it has failed.

    In fairness to Nigel Evans, he was a deputy Speaker and didn't vote in the debate for the law in question.

    He is, however, a particularly toady Tory, so I'm sure would have voted for Tory policy had he been able to.
  • The fact that he didn't actually vote for it does not take away from the fact that he "personally supported it". And now, when it has affected him, he doesn;t support it any more.

    But of course we are "all in it together". They are all working for us, for our benefit, for the country.
  • Er...yes, of course they are.

    O look - Bacon has just gone up.....

    (*as in Flying Pigs).
  • The fact that he didn't actually vote for it does not take away from the fact that he "personally supported it". And now, when it has affected him, he doesn;t support it any more.

    But of course we are "all in it together". They are all working for us, for our benefit, for the country.

    He either didn't give a shit or was so amazingly thick that he couldn't see how withdrawing legal aid would mean people would struggle to pay for legal representation when they needed it.

    Which was it, we wonder...
  • Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. And vice versa.
This discussion has been closed.