The voting arrangements for the house are under the control of MPs and their elected leader for such purposes, Lindsay Hoyle.
The Speaker agreed that a vote on alternative arrangements should go ahead on Tuesday, and he has stated he will allow MPs to table amendments if the government and opposition can’t reach agreement. What could be fairer than that? But no, blame Boris Johnson.
Well, you started this thread before he was even PM with the words "blond, lazy, racist, misogynist, lying arrogant, incompetent" and have since claimed he's leading a neo-fascist government. It really isn't going to be worth the effort to try and convince you of anything.
Please tell me which part of "blond, lazy, racist, misogynist, lying, arrogant, incompetent" was not demonstrably true of Mr Johnson from his roles as Mayor, Foreign Secretary and journalist?
Just because he's confirmed that discription since, doesn't mean that it wasn't self-evident before.
I accept completely that blond is not a pejorative term. It's still true though.
'Rage-filled control freak'. I must admit I have had no personal dealings with the man, but, from reports, that seems to be a pretty accurate description of the PM's Principal (and indispensible, apparently) Adviser.
The voting arrangements for the house are under the control of MPs and their elected leader for such purposes, Lindsay Hoyle.
The Speaker agreed that a vote on alternative arrangements should go ahead on Tuesday, and he has stated he will allow MPs to table amendments if the government and opposition can’t reach agreement. What could be fairer than that? But no, blame Boris Johnson.
The government put a proposal to the Speaker, which he has agreed to. Admittedly the proposal is to recall the House so that the few who can attend will have a chance to debate it, and thus it's under the control of the House. It wasn't a decision by the Speaker, except to the extent that he allowed the debate (it would, presumably, be almost impossible for him to deny that - even the fantastic Mr Bercow wouldn't have pushed tradition that far no matter what the threat to Parliament he might see in it). Though it's not easy to see how the House could vote on a procedure for voting when there's no procedure for voting ... nor how the motion and amendments can be debated when the majority of MPs will be unable to attend.
The problem with the "it's too early to tell" / "let's wait until we have the full picture" kind of statement is that it's like the team that's rock bottom at Christmas and haven't won a game all season saying, "no need to worry, we might win all the rest of our games and do quite well this year. Let's wait and see where we are at the end of the season."
Except that instead of fun meaningless sport, it's loads of people dying unnecessarily.
A football club would have sacked the manager by now.
West Brom, 2004/5. It can happen 😁
I’m now picturing Michael Gove as the ageing uninspiring midfielder who somehow still makes the team each week despite being crap, and Rishi Sunak as the youngster snapped up from the lower leagues who’s somehow better than all the ‘pros’ who have been in top flight for their whole careers.
Considering how he was chucked in the deep end, I was expecting total car crash from the start. Instead, he’s proved more competent than most Tory politicians, at any rate.
Considering how he was chucked in the deep end, I was expecting total car crash from the start. Instead, he’s proved more competent than most Tory politicians, at any rate.
Considering how he was chucked in the deep end, I was expecting total car crash from the start. Instead, he’s proved more competent than most Tory politicians, at any rate.
That's a rather damning assessment of the competence of most Tory politicians.
Considering how he was chucked in the deep end, I was expecting total car crash from the start. Instead, he’s proved more competent than most Tory politicians, at any rate.
Well the Chancellor did accidentally on purpose come up with a good wheeze for encouraging the self-employed to be a bit more accurate in reporting their income in the future. There were a lot of people on Mumsnet at the time the support calculation mechanism was announced thinking it was payback time for their exes who had underreporting so they could get out of paying as much Child Maintenance as they should.
Why his local constituency office didn't take advantage of the 2019 election to dump him and stand a half-decent human being in his place is beyond me. Even more than the fact that there are too many people who will vote blue no matter how asinine and disgusting the behaviour of the candidate with the blue rosette.
Why his local constituency office didn't take advantage of the 2019 election to dump him and stand a half-decent human being in his place is beyond me. Even more than the fact that there are too many people who will vote blue no matter how asinine and disgusting the behaviour of the candidate with the blue rosette.
If they wanted decent human beings they wouldn't be tory party members in the first place. They're not voting for him in spite of him saying things like this, but because he says things like this.
What's he said that's controversial? That immigrants should be quarantined (as is the case in most countries around the world right now, including those with left-wing governments) or that the 2m social distance guideline is twice that of the World Health Organisation guideline?
The Brexiteer is no stranger to controversy. In June 2018, Chope blocked the passage of a private member’s bill outlawing upskirting and in November of the same year, he voted against legislation to protect girls at risk from female genital mutilation.
He has also voted against legislation on gay marriage and backs the reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription.
Why his local constituency office didn't take advantage of the 2019 election to dump him and stand a half-decent human being in his place is beyond me. Even more than the fact that there are too many people who will vote blue no matter how asinine and disgusting the behaviour of the candidate with the blue rosette.
They save the more reasonable candidates for seats that aren't 'Donkey in a Blue Rosette' country.
What's he said that's controversial? That immigrants should be quarantined (as is the case in most countries around the world right now, including those with left-wing governments) or that the 2m social distance guideline is twice that of the World Health Organisation guideline?
Since after three months the UK government is only now considering quarantine for people entering the country, that's a moot point. The WHO guideline is at least 1m, therefore the recommendation of the UK governments for 2m is in accordance with WHO guidelines (which as is common for WHO are set to accommodate everyone - and not all nations will be able to enforce a 2m distance, the UK can).
The point is that his statements are consistent with his now moronic beliefs that there is a problem with immigration (there isn't - immigration is good the economy and our society, just look at the numbers of people in our health and care sectors) and conflating immigration with asylum (they're different issues - and as the government refuses to allow asylum seekers to work to support themselves asylum seekers do constitute a drain on the economy, letting them work while their claims are assessed would ease that considerably). It's also consistent with government policy to block legal routes for refugees to find a place of safety (including, just last week legislation to prevent children from joining their families who already live legally in the UK. What sort of monster keeps children fleeing conflict away from their families? FFS), which is driving so many desperate to find a place of safety into the hands of criminal gangs.
And, he managed to get all that drivel into a response to a letter about the rule-dodging Mr Cummings.
Considering how he was chucked in the deep end, I was expecting total car crash from the start. Instead, he’s proved more competent than most Tory politicians, at any rate.
That's a rather damning assessment of the competence of most Tory politicians.
It's fair. They cleared out all the competent ones between 2016 and 2019.
I suppose saying this will provoke @yohan300 but by any standards, what's left is dross.
On Chope, some years ago, when he was a minor sub-minister in the Department of Transport, the peak of his political career, I met him through my work. The meeting only lasted about an hour, but that was sufficient to gain an overwhelming impression that this was a man who was arrogant, not very bright, didn't listen, and if he had once had any habit about thinking about anything, had long since given up on the idea. That would have been nearly 30 years ago. He would have been younger, more intellectually agile, less set in his own complacency.
I suspect now he's rather a sad figure. It's dawned on him that the brilliant political career he'd once imagined for himself, the accolades of the public, the admiration of those he meets, the respect he so desperately sought, has passed him by. People have never appreciated the worth he once saw in himself. To him, it appears there are only two options. He can either carry on in the familiar groove of ranting stupidity or he can give up.
What's he said that's controversial? That immigrants should be quarantined (as is the case in most countries around the world right now, including those with left-wing governments) or that the 2m social distance guideline is twice that of the World Health Organisation guideline?
Riiiiight, he was simply raising a serious point in response to the constituent's letter.
Bullshit.
What is more craven than democratically elected representatives bending over backwards to defend a government adviser who clearly broke the regulations and constructed ever-more complex and stupid lies to try to pretend otherwise? THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND THE COUNTRY!!! What is so hard about that basic concept?
But yeah, it's the immigrants that we should worry about.
Though it's not easy to see how the House could vote on a procedure for voting when there's no procedure for voting ... nor how the motion and amendments can be debated when the majority of MPs will be unable to attend.
It turned out that the procedure for voting was the very one that they were debating, so partisan wrecking of parliament by one party it is.
It does seem that one party in Parliament is willing to vote for measures that will prevent many Members from attending or voting in the House. They call it democracy.
I believe, from something a Lib Dem friend posted on Facebook, that the MP for Shetland has moved to London for the foreseeable future without any prospect of returning home to his family so that he can be in Parliament. I also forsee another Judicial Review looming imminently on Equality grounds.
It would appear that for many MPs the choice is stay in London permanently or stay at home with their families and close to their constituents. At present the coronavirus is too prevalent to make journeys of more than a few miles sensible as this will simply allow the virus to continue to spread. Many MPs will simply not want to be seen to be promoting behaviours that put their constituents at risk. People will look at their MPs, and others in government both elected and appointed, and see them doing things that will result in greater spread of the virus and some of them will conclude that therefore it's safe for them to drive hundreds of miles to see family, return to work before adequate social distancing and test and protect systems are in place, or hang out with hundreds of others on the beach or in the park. The government and Parliament should be setting an example that we should all Stay at Home, leaving only for essential shopping or work in key sectors where we can't work from home. They've shown that the business of the House can be conducted with very few people in the Commons, albeit imperfectly, there's no reason to go against the science and stop now.
The ones who are willing to let people die so that they can travel between constituencies outside Greater London and Westminster (even many constituencies within Greater London would represent an excess distance to travel) are also the ones we don't want to dominate the proceedings of the House.
Now he's accusing the Leader of the Opposition of undermining public opinion by voicing what quite a lot of people think and challenging the government's record on handling Covid-19 and especially on their selective approach to science and maths.
And we have to put up with the opinions of individuals who, in one case wasn't even offered for election, or mentioned in election, and the other was only offered to one constituency. One man, one vote, and the rest of us have to put up with the consequences.
Johnson’s darkest hour, his decision to essentially prioritise
Cummings over the pandemic response, had at least three
immediate effects. First and foremost, it seriously damaged
public trust and goodwill in complying with lockdown measures,
risking a deadlier next wave of infection. Second, it belittled
staff and patients who have risen to complex logistic, clinical
and personal challenges while delivering care. Third, it forced the government’s scientific advisers into open dissent.
I posted this in the Coronavirus thread but I think it also belongs here as well. This is the Prime Minister who yesterday described himself as 'proud' of the UK's Coronavirus response whilst the death rate has become one of the highest in the world (or possibly the highest, depending on which measure you use).
The last paragraph is particularly pertinent:
Scientists and doctors in advisory positions face a dual
obligation to the state and to the public. But what happens when
the government’s integrity no longer matches your personal or
professional integrity, when your public accountability seems
greater than that of the politicians you advise? Do you fight
from within? Do you speak out, and even resign? What of the
leaders of medical organisations working closely with the
government? Regrettably, questions of conscience and duty
must now be addressed.
We don’t hear of Fauci any more. He used to be on every news broadcast walking that line.
Yep. I think it's really important to appreciate the position Fauci is in. He could speak his mind and then Trump will fire him and that would almost-certainly make things worse for most Americans. On the other hand, he clearly cannot fully endorse the bilge coming from the President's mouth.
I think this is also the last year of the current Agenda for Change pay deal. (The national NHS pay scale that covers everyone except doctors, dentists and very very senior managers.) I expect the unions will be driving a very hard line when they start negotiating after everything that's happened this year. Boris might not be so keen on public support for the NHS when it starts expecting to be paid properly.
Twitter yesterday reacted to a Private Eye report that:
Boris Johnson hosted a baby shower for Carrie Symonds at Chequers just two days before announcing "now is the time for everyone to stop non-essential contact with others" - yet more "necessary" travel from Downing Street revealed in the new Private Eye.
One implication is this was part of the reason the UK locked down on 23 March instead of earlier, as advice was given to lock down earlier.
Lots of chatter that the tracing system won't be fully operational until September. This would be funny, if it didn't involve people's lives. You can see a pattern here, Boris, or sometimes, Hancock announces a world-beating system, which then crashes, and takes months to stabilize. The media point out that many countries were doing this 3 months ago, and some of them have reduced deaths to single figures. Oh, I forgot, comparisons between countries are in poor taste, except when Boris says world-beating.
Astonishing figures came out yesterday, showing the total covid deaths in Europe are the same as UK deaths. Shush, Boris is having a snooze, don't disturb.
Astonishing figures came out yesterday, showing the total covid deaths in Europe are the same as UK deaths. Shush, Boris is having a snooze, don't disturb.
Where did you see those figures? Spain, Italy and France alone have all had in excess of 30 000 deaths. While the UK figure is undoubtedly higher than it might have been, I'm dubious that it's in excess of 90 000.
It was this infographic (link to Twitter) that was doing the rounds yesterday, showing 359 deaths announced in the UK compared with 314 across the EU 27. I've linked to Karol Sikora debunking the numbers.
It was this infographic (link to Twitter) that was doing the rounds yesterday, showing 359 deaths announced in the UK compared with 314 across the EU 27. I've linked to Karol Sikora debunking the numbers.
Yes, Sikora is one of the outliers along with Gupta, who are saying that the virus is sizzling out, and therefore measures to repress it are pointless.
Astonishing figures came out yesterday, showing the total covid deaths in Europe are the same as UK deaths. Shush, Boris is having a snooze, don't disturb.
Where did you see those figures? Spain, Italy and France alone have all had in excess of 30 000 deaths. While the UK figure is undoubtedly higher than it might have been, I'm dubious that it's in excess of 90 000.
Comments
The Speaker agreed that a vote on alternative arrangements should go ahead on Tuesday, and he has stated he will allow MPs to table amendments if the government and opposition can’t reach agreement. What could be fairer than that? But no, blame Boris Johnson.
Please tell me which part of "blond, lazy, racist, misogynist, lying, arrogant, incompetent" was not demonstrably true of Mr Johnson from his roles as Mayor, Foreign Secretary and journalist?
Just because he's confirmed that discription since, doesn't mean that it wasn't self-evident before.
I accept completely that blond is not a pejorative term. It's still true though.
AFZ
I’m now picturing Michael Gove as the ageing uninspiring midfielder who somehow still makes the team each week despite being crap, and Rishi Sunak as the youngster snapped up from the lower leagues who’s somehow better than all the ‘pros’ who have been in top flight for their whole careers.
That bar is so low it's resting on bedrock.
I'm sure he'll settle into type as time goes on.
Remember folks, the British Conservative Party is 'centre-right.'
Ummm... bollocks.
AFZ
If they wanted decent human beings they wouldn't be tory party members in the first place. They're not voting for him in spite of him saying things like this, but because he says things like this.
He's a known moron.
They save the more reasonable candidates for seats that aren't 'Donkey in a Blue Rosette' country.
But of course a gentleman would never be considered a lunatic. He would merely be eccentric.
The point is that his statements are consistent with his now moronic beliefs that there is a problem with immigration (there isn't - immigration is good the economy and our society, just look at the numbers of people in our health and care sectors) and conflating immigration with asylum (they're different issues - and as the government refuses to allow asylum seekers to work to support themselves asylum seekers do constitute a drain on the economy, letting them work while their claims are assessed would ease that considerably). It's also consistent with government policy to block legal routes for refugees to find a place of safety (including, just last week legislation to prevent children from joining their families who already live legally in the UK. What sort of monster keeps children fleeing conflict away from their families? FFS), which is driving so many desperate to find a place of safety into the hands of criminal gangs.
And, he managed to get all that drivel into a response to a letter about the rule-dodging Mr Cummings.
I suppose saying this will provoke @yohan300 but by any standards, what's left is dross.
On Chope, some years ago, when he was a minor sub-minister in the Department of Transport, the peak of his political career, I met him through my work. The meeting only lasted about an hour, but that was sufficient to gain an overwhelming impression that this was a man who was arrogant, not very bright, didn't listen, and if he had once had any habit about thinking about anything, had long since given up on the idea. That would have been nearly 30 years ago. He would have been younger, more intellectually agile, less set in his own complacency.
I suspect now he's rather a sad figure. It's dawned on him that the brilliant political career he'd once imagined for himself, the accolades of the public, the admiration of those he meets, the respect he so desperately sought, has passed him by. People have never appreciated the worth he once saw in himself. To him, it appears there are only two options. He can either carry on in the familiar groove of ranting stupidity or he can give up.
Eccentric, yes, and possibly also (at the same time) a clergyman...
Riiiiight, he was simply raising a serious point in response to the constituent's letter.
Bullshit.
What is more craven than democratically elected representatives bending over backwards to defend a government adviser who clearly broke the regulations and constructed ever-more complex and stupid lies to try to pretend otherwise? THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND THE COUNTRY!!! What is so hard about that basic concept?
But yeah, it's the immigrants that we should worry about.
It remains utter bollocks.
AFZ
It turned out that the procedure for voting was the very one that they were debating, so partisan wrecking of parliament by one party it is.
The ones who are willing to let people die so that they can travel between constituencies outside Greater London and Westminster (even many constituencies within Greater London would represent an excess distance to travel) are also the ones we don't want to dominate the proceedings of the House.
Peradventure he sleepeth, or goeth on a journey, or lieth in the bosoms of his families...
In all seriousness though, how much longer can they continue to get away with such blatant erosions of democracy (not to mention stupidity)?
I posted this in the Coronavirus thread but I think it also belongs here as well. This is the Prime Minister who yesterday described himself as 'proud' of the UK's Coronavirus response whilst the death rate has become one of the highest in the world (or possibly the highest, depending on which measure you use).
The last paragraph is particularly pertinent:
The Prime Minister is the problem.
AFZ
Yep. I think it's really important to appreciate the position Fauci is in. He could speak his mind and then Trump will fire him and that would almost-certainly make things worse for most Americans. On the other hand, he clearly cannot fully endorse the bilge coming from the President's mouth.
Don't forget union bashing.
It said so on the side of a bus, so it must be True.
350 million? That sum would not keep them in PPE. And the government knows it.
Where did you see those figures? Spain, Italy and France alone have all had in excess of 30 000 deaths. While the UK figure is undoubtedly higher than it might have been, I'm dubious that it's in excess of 90 000.
Yes, Sikora is one of the outliers along with Gupta, who are saying that the virus is sizzling out, and therefore measures to repress it are pointless.
Yes, sorry, I should have said daily deaths.