The difference between Beard and Johnson is that she has substance and he hasn't. Johnson has got away with bluster and a plummy voice as a substitute for content for far too long. He isn't amiable and fun. He's facile and a bully. Mair's accusation stands. His speeches so far have been vapid and instantly forgettable.
I see he’s learning from tRump at calling the left wing opposition ‘communists’.
🙄🙄
Nah, the tories have been doing that since at least 2010, and going full tilt since Corbyn's election as leader in 2015. They don't need Mango Mussolini to teach them that one.
I see he’s learning from tRump at calling the left wing opposition ‘communists’.
🙄🙄
Nah, the tories have been doing that since at least 2010, and going full tilt since Corbyn's election as leader in 2015. They don't need Mango Mussolini to teach them that one.
It goes way back, probably to the Zinoviev Letter which was published four days before the 1924 general election. It was treated as genuine at the time, later found to be fraudulent and turned many voters away from Labour of the basis of a "Red Peril". It was published in the Daily Mail of all places.
Whereas this time we've got a report on possible Russian interference which probably contains serious and genuine allegations which the Conservative Party has used its power in their last day fully in office to suppress, deliberately.
It just underlines how lax and credulous we are when it comes to party funding.
It is long past time that ALL donations other than a single membership fee should have to be declared and any donation over a certain amount - I'd suggest £500 - could only be from a UK passport holder, paid from a UK bank account, and printed on a published list available on the party's website.
All corporate donations over £5,000 - and I'd include trades unions in that description - could only be made if they had been approved by a vote at the company or union's AGM/ Conference.
Of course this would mean the two main parties in particular would have far less money - which would have an added bonus of meaning far fewer cringe-worthy party political broadcasts.
It just underlines how lax and credulous we are when it comes to party funding.
It is long past time that ALL donations other than a single membership fee should have to be declared and any donation over a certain amount - I'd suggest £500 - could only be from a UK passport holder, paid from a UK bank account, and printed on a published list available on the party's website.
All corporate donations over £5,000 - and I'd include trades unions in that description - could only be made if they had been approved by a vote at the company or union's AGM/ Conference.
Of course this would mean the two main parties in particular would have far less money - which would have an added bonus of meaning far fewer cringe-worthy party political broadcasts.
It would also mean my social feed wouldn't be cluttered with nonsense telling me how awesome the Tories are and how much I want to vote for them ... OTH, it's made me log out of FB so I suppose that's a win.
All corporate donations over £5,000 - and I'd include trades unions in that description - could only be made if they had been approved by a vote at the company or union's AGM/ Conference.
Current legislation is that only Trade Unions are covered. Corporate donations are not. So, yes, levelling the playing field in favour of the Labour party would be a terrific idea. How forward-thinking and egalitarian of you.
You're welcome - just channelling my latent Dorothy Parker ("If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.")
AFAICT the article concludes that, while JRM may not have been any-Semitic in the way that Lord Dubs was suggesting, what he (JRM) said was untrue, and
may indeed have come from a dark place.
and
it may be more sensible to take a deep breath, consider context and actually think about what’s been said. Because when we do, we may find the real prejudice we’ve been looking for all along.
I do not believe the Jewish Chronicle speaks for Jewish people.
AFZ
Given the skew of voting intentions among the Jewish community it certainly seems to speak for a quite a lot of Jewish people, unfortunately.
I'm old enough to remember when Labour had quite a number of distinguished Jewish MPs.
It still does (well, technically not right now) as well as other senior figures elsewhere in the party. But the zionist portion of the Jewish community turned against Labour under Miliband when he started to offer tentative support to the Palestinian cause. Corbyn's history as a staunch advocate of Palestinian rights only cemented that move.
AFAICT the article concludes that, while JRM may not have been any-Semitic in the way that Lord Dubs was suggesting, what he (JRM) said was untrue, and
may indeed have come from a dark place.
and
it may be more sensible to take a deep breath, consider context and actually think about what’s been said. Because when we do, we may find the real prejudice we’ve been looking for all along.
Sort of.
But the reasoning in the article is incoherent.
The notion that Rees-Mogg didn't know he was using an antisemitism trope is fanciful at best. Seriously, is it really possible for a politician in his position to not know?
He would have been laughed at by everyone if he'd tried that defence. He never had to, because he was never challenged on it.
Watching Boris in last night's debate, I was struck by the Gish gallop technique he uses, rendered famous by creationists. If asked something specific, e.g., why does it take 2 weeks to get a GP appointment, he ignores the question, and produces a barrage of stuff, 40 hospitals, 30 000 new nurses, millions of new GP appointments, etc. If you challenge any of this - where are the new hospitals to be built - you get another barrage, seed money, it's Labour's fault, and so on.
I suppose it works, in a sense. He doesn't actually say anything, and presumably Boris fans think it's energetic. We're being sold down the river by a con artist.
The Mad Mophead was supposed to favour our fair city with His Holy Presence today, but the visit was called off at the last minute.
Deep Joy! We remain uncontaminated!
So it was your altar party with the placards?
Mad Mophead lives in quite an altar-native reality, and should go back to the 'placard' (French: cupboard; closet) whence he came from, together with all the other unsavoury skeletons.
Comments
I really don’t think he is sleeping well. He’s aged at least three years in about six months.
A friend of mine who knows Mary Beard a bit says Beard wiped the floor with Johnson, and he was most ungracious in defeat.
Sometimes these days, the Queen looks like 93.
Ah yes... tasteless, predigested, overpriced pap for hoi polloi [= common people]. That sounds about right.
His appearances in the flood-hit communities of South Yorkshire have gone down like a lead balloon, I see. One woman went so far as to call him an a***hole... https://indy100.com/article/boris-johnson-arsehole-south-yorkshire-floods-general-election-video-watch-9202781?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1PUg3L1rMdKaevt1kskOHBN263zxpPnPZVAttJlajJuvV-OH46awJbDLQ#Echobox=1573742432
Thank you for that link. It cheered me up.
🙄🙄
Don't knock it. This goes down better than you would ever expect.
Nah, the tories have been doing that since at least 2010, and going full tilt since Corbyn's election as leader in 2015. They don't need Mango Mussolini to teach them that one.
It goes way back, probably to the Zinoviev Letter which was published four days before the 1924 general election. It was treated as genuine at the time, later found to be fraudulent and turned many voters away from Labour of the basis of a "Red Peril". It was published in the Daily Mail of all places.
Bastards.
It is long past time that ALL donations other than a single membership fee should have to be declared and any donation over a certain amount - I'd suggest £500 - could only be from a UK passport holder, paid from a UK bank account, and printed on a published list available on the party's website.
All corporate donations over £5,000 - and I'd include trades unions in that description - could only be made if they had been approved by a vote at the company or union's AGM/ Conference.
Of course this would mean the two main parties in particular would have far less money - which would have an added bonus of meaning far fewer cringe-worthy party political broadcasts.
It would also mean my social feed wouldn't be cluttered with nonsense telling me how awesome the Tories are and how much I want to vote for them ... OTH, it's made me log out of FB so I suppose that's a win.
Current legislation is that only Trade Unions are covered. Corporate donations are not. So, yes, levelling the playing field in favour of the Labour party would be a terrific idea. How forward-thinking and egalitarian of you.
As are some company's objects that exclude the power to make such donations
Yes, they should. Maybe they ahould have to opt in, rather than out?
It's opt in for unions, I think.
Well I know, but it makes more sense than some of his statements that I've read.
He was shown laying the wreath he laid last year, which was the wrong wreath.
(Let me know if I've missed it elsewhere).
Nah, they'll be writing an article explaining why Tory Antisemitism doesn't count.
Think I'm exaggerating? https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/jacob-rees-mogg-george-soros-parliament-brexit-eu-antisemitic-remarks-opinion-comment-1.489706
I do not believe the Jewish Chronicle speaks for Jewish people.
AFZ
Given the skew of voting intentions among the Jewish community it certainly seems to speak for a quite a lot of Jewish people, unfortunately.
I'm old enough to remember when Labour had quite a number of distinguished Jewish MPs.
It still does (well, technically not right now) as well as other senior figures elsewhere in the party. But the zionist portion of the Jewish community turned against Labour under Miliband when he started to offer tentative support to the Palestinian cause. Corbyn's history as a staunch advocate of Palestinian rights only cemented that move.
Sort of.
But the reasoning in the article is incoherent.
The notion that Rees-Mogg didn't know he was using an antisemitism trope is fanciful at best. Seriously, is it really possible for a politician in his position to not know?
He would have been laughed at by everyone if he'd tried that defence. He never had to, because he was never challenged on it.
Good point. Well made.
AFZ
Being as polite as I can, that was a very silly post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI87PRgIKks
Only 2 minutes to brighten your day.
Especially the ' expecting the dog-shit to be cleaned up by the dog.... ' Might use that while I'm out canvassing
I am fervently hoping that the voters of Uxbridge and South Ruislip clean up after their dog.
Deep Joy! We remain uncontaminated!
So it was your altar party with the placards?
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
In a campaign full of mud slinging, this feels like a particularly low blow.
I suppose it works, in a sense. He doesn't actually say anything, and presumably Boris fans think it's energetic. We're being sold down the river by a con artist.
Mad Mophead lives in quite an altar-native reality, and should go back to the 'placard' (French: cupboard; closet) whence he came from, together with all the other unsavoury skeletons.