Be Excellent To Each Other

I'm not convinced, given the way our parliament works, that a good opposition would have changed the direction of travel. Mollified it, maybe. Pointed out that a 'leave' vote doesn't equate to any definitive type of deal, perhaps. But that opposition would have needed to pick a 'position' on Europe, and might well have come to the same conclusion as Labour, that being seen to be anti-leaving is electoral suicide.

I generally agree that we need a stronger opposition. And we miss it now we don't have one. But we could just as well have one and the government could still push through what they want.

A fine Bercow from yesterday's Brexit debate:

I think the world would be a less colourful place without Jacob Rees-Mogg:

Less colourful without him, maybe.

Better, definitely.

Every party needs a backbench fruitcake. Just don't nominate them for the leadership.

I have forgotten why i dislike him.

He's probably going to be my MP after the boundary reshuffle. He's like a crude caricature of a Tory MP - Rich family, Eton, Oxford, City, then canvassing with his Nanny.

Mhairi Black calls him "her boyfriend". Which is nice.

Ah, the delightful Ms Black. She puts the "common" into The Commons.
Such a touch of class.

I'm really not sure why you have such a thing against her. A young, intelligent, articulate, person being involved in politics should be a good thing.

This he is. Also very homophobic and with ties to racist groups. And is a fan of Trump (though disavowed him on his sexist 'grab by the pussy' comments). Just a privileged rich kid playing politics because it's a thing to do (whilst owning a large investment firm that he lobbied on behalf of for things like tobacco without declaring his interests to Parliament).

But he sounds funny and uses fun words! It's like he's BoJo without the charm.

Without the what, now?

I don't have "such a thing" against her, any more than I have "a thing" against any MP whom I disagree with. That's frontline politics and public life for you; if anyone doesn't fancy being criticised, mildly lampooned or whatever, then don't become an MP. Politics - especially Scottish politics - is a rough old game, I'd say.

Others have a "thing" against Jacob Rees-Mogg, which is equally fine by me. Equally, you clearly feel that referring to another MP as "my boyfriend" in Parliament is articulate and intelligent, just as I reserve the right to think it crass, classless and disrespectful (to Parliament). It's a free country.

If we can snip at ReesMogg over his upbringing, then surely we can snip at Blacks?

Precisely so, Mali - but the double standards reality is different.
Me? I say bollocks to that I'm afraid.

People don't have a go at Rees-Mogg because he's posh. They have a go at his poshness because he's an appalling bigot.

Much like I wouldn't mock Boris Johnson's hair because I hate floppy blond hair - I mock his hair because his politics fucked my country.

Sure but there are different standards about what it is and isn't generally ok to rip into people about. I think that if someone has succeeded despite their upbringing rather than mostly just because of it then that changes things a bit.

FWIW though I thought cavey was criticising her demeanour rather than her upbringing.

Agreed. Common in attitude isn't the same as common in upbringing.

I personal consider her to be significantly less boorish than a large amount of the supposedly 'well-bred' members. The fact that I like her politics probably influences my opinion though

Exactly so Mark (thanks btw).

I'm hardly likely to criticise someone - anyone - for having a rough upbringing, given my own situation on that score.
Also, Cras, you're wrong: plenty of people do have a go at Rees-Mogg because he's posh, very much so. I don't have a problem with it if he's put himself in public life as a high profile MP and our TV screens; same goes for Ms Black, especially when directly courting controversy to boot.

To me, the situation is quite straight forward, I must say. Live by the sword, die by the sword etc.

I think there's a very large and obvious difference between commenting on the background of people in politics, especially when it directly influences what they do.

Rees-Mogg is very rich, enjoyed all the benefits possible from this, was given the best education money can buy, and is the very epitome of privilege. He has used this position to play at politics, shoving a homophobic and nationalist agenda that is very anti-immigration and anti-poor. Chances are, and I could be wrong, he doesn't really understand the challenges of being below the poverty line. Likewise, he luxuriates in this persona; he plays word games in Parliament, filibusters bills for fun so he can talk about whatever interests him (at taxpayer's expense) and brags of his wealth and his eccentricity. He is very much a part of what is wrong with politics, IMO. It's just a game, and if poor people have to die, and gay people have to be discriminated against, well, not his problem.

Black I know somewhat less about, but AFAIK she is not from wealth, but still excelled academically, and obtained a first class degree. She is (duh) female, gay, and the youngest person to become an MP in years. As such, she has to overcome a lot of prejudice that Rees Mogg would never have even believed existed, let alone encountered. Despite this she has made multiple speeches that have been well received (her maiden speech is certainly one of the most well known in recent Parliament, and for the right reasons) and is widely considered to be a good MP who takes the role seriously. She is keen to improve what happens in Westminster, but received resistance at any attempts on reform from the people who would prefer it to remain the kind of club that she would not be let in to (female, gay, young, and a commoner!).

I'd have no problem with Rees Mogg's background if he gave any indication that he was in politics for the right reasons, and to try to make things better for the UK population, but he manifestly isn't and doesn't. His voting record speaks for itself.

Whilst it might not be the case on here, the abuse that Black has received in her time as an MP has been a disgrace. Pot shots at her appearance, weight, sexuality, gender, age, accent, background, you name it, they have all been very common.

We should really be trying to improve representation in Parliament, but there's still a very real stigma attached that works negatively for the likes of Black and positively for the likes of Rees Mogg.

Sorry for the rant.

You're turning this into a Rees-Mogg vs. Black thing - a total straw man. I don't doubt for one second that Rees-Mogg is a pompous, over-privileged upper class twit and nothing I've said here would even remotely suggest otherwise, nor does this have any bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the delightful Ms Black.

You pulled me up for my (casual, throwaway, good-humoured and in keeping) quip about Black's lack of class when referring to her political opponent, in Parliament, as "her boyfriend", but a whole bunch of similar stuff about Rees-Mogg being a toffee-nosed twatto or whatever (which I equally regard as fair game and have no problem with) is supposedly somehow "different", according to you. Well, I'm sorry, Curio, but I call total bullshit on that; sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose....

It's punching up versus punching down again. Making fun of the poor and underprivileged isn't on a level with making fun of the rich and privileged. Sure, both are being rude, but punching down is ultimately significantly less classy.

I totally and fundamentally disagree, in the context of comments about fair-game MPs who are in public office (and as in this case, courting controversy/dishing it out with "my boyfriend" comments in Parliament, if I understand Kern correctly).

I don't want to upset anyone here but for me, the rules of the game are the same whether you're young, old, fat, thin, gay, straight, male, female, black, white, rich or poor. Fundamentally, I'm egalitarian; level playing fields and all that are the ideal to which we must all aspire to (IMO).

The alternative is moral double standards and hypocrisy, which I can't stand, personally.

Surely the 'my boyfriend' comment is tongue-in-cheek and (to my mild shock and disappointment) suggests an attempt at mutual respect? Have I interpreted it entirely wrongly?

Yes, it was a playful comment in a Guardian interview about how outside the chamber, opposites can attract.

Heh. Well, to be fair, my comments were equally throwaway; it's others who have taken such grave exception to them. Sorry if I don't share their admiration for this particular MP but, if it's any consolation it's got nothing to do with her gender, weight, age, upbringing or sexuality, and I too also regard Rees-Mogg as a living-and-breathing-caricature posh git.

Fundamentally, I entirely reject the notion that being male, female, gay, straight or whatever - in the specific case of elected public life - confers anyone a force-field.

Wow, Not often I say this but QT last night was awesome IMO, with Ruth Davidson on truly sensational form. Her lethal, fact-based put down of Len McCluskey, in particular, was quite the sight to behold, delicious.

For me, her feisty cut through the BS style is like a breath of fresh air.

He's said he'll testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Time to heat up the popcorn maker.

What do people think about the whole Trump/Russia thing? I need someone else to tell me because I really don't have a clue. Just massively confused by it all. With most situations or stories I think I have a reasonable handle on what seems plausible but not here.

It looks an awful lot like there was an exchange of promises of improved relations/the lifting of sanctions in exchange for assistance with the election. I don't think that's much in doubt. The questions will be around how high up in the Trump campaign/administration those deals happened, and exactly what if any parts of it were criminal.

There's also lots of questions about the extent of his business deals, arrangements, and relationships with various Russian oligarchs. And as anyone who's anyone in Russia needs to keep in favour with Mr Putin, if there are links the Russian President is unlikely not to be aware of them.

So what about the dossier? The bloke who put it together seems pretty legit but that's some extraordinary stuff.

Nothing concrete yet. All I've found is that the BBC have said that a Russian diplomat accused of being a spy in the document has been "verified" by US officials.

Nice to see Michael Howard raise the spectre of actual war in Europe (against Spain FFS), as over Gibraltar.

I can only hope it's just the impotent sabre-rattling of the increasingly infirm Old Guard... nice prelude to negotiations which, at this rate, will last about a week before WTO.

So glad I decided not to buy a villa in Spain when the pound was stronger and they were ridiculously dirt cheap...

The Falklands panned out pretty well for Maggie, maybe they're after another nice boost in the polls, paid for in human lives and endless millions of pounds.

#FALKLANDS2 - THIS TIME IT'S THERESA

Heh. No need to worry about any need for a boost at the polls with ol' Corby at Labour's helm. Even Labour supporters would rather have May as PM than him lol, as according to a YouGov poll I linked to last week.

(As for costing hundreds of thousands of human lives and many billions, not millions of pounds, look no further than the tragedy that was, and still is, Iraq, which makes the Falklands Conflict look like an argument in a car park...)

I'm no apologist for Blair, the Iraq disaster will be his legacy forever, even if he's too fucking arrogant to realise it. (Which is, I assume, why he keeps popping up to try and talk politics from time to time as if people will respect his opinion, when all anyone ever sees is a lying warmongering cunt.)

Maybe all high-ranking politicians press the self-destruct button in spectacular fashion in the end. Maggie = Poll Tax. Blair = Iraq. Cameron = Brexit. Major = Eating peas with Edwina. (I can't really remember his downfall specifically, although even the right wing rags turned against him in the end, probably because they saw in Blair someone they could 'work with'.)

Well, I guess from my POV, probably best to check the glass house construction before taking politically-motivated pot shots at the Tories for ill-advised wars costing lives and treasure. I mean, seriously?

Regardless, though, I totally agree with your sentiments re. Blair. I just don't get how anyone could be so utterly non self-aware, seemingly unable to note the absolute levels of hatred and loathing that many in this Country have not just for his party, but him personally? (I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that he's the most hated man in Britain, which probably says all that needs to be said about the utterly toxic, truly catastrophic legacy of Labour).

It's beyond weird TBH.

To show he's a tycoon acting out of a sense of public duty, Mr Trump has donated $78,000 from his presidential salary to the National Park Service. The NPS is one of the best things about the USA, and well worth supporting. Which is why his proposed budget severely slashes its funding. [CBS article].

Oh, and he can also take money from his arms-length trust whenever he likes. [CBS article].

I don't think I like him very much.

I think the key learning point from the Ken Livingstone affair is that when people suggest you stop talking about Hitler, you probably should stop talking about Hitler.

Heh. Quite the salutary lesson, I'd say, and by no means in that one respect only either.... the whole stinking, shambling mess laid bare.

Christ on a bike though - repeatedly bringing party into disrepute by banging on about Hitler and he gets to retain party membership, but is barred from holding an official position. Yet a while back they were purging members based on supposed lack of true support on Twitter.

I really dislike this government, but Labour are just hopeless right now.

Quite. I mean really, the whole thing's beyond crazy now - feels like one of those trippy, surreal dreams you wake from, not knowing if it's real or not for the first few seconds of waking, before feeling that sense of relief wash over you about how ridiculous it all sounds in the cold light of day.

For me at least, this is, or should be, one of those salutary moments of revelation for all those (including here) whose (IMO inexplicable in the face of all the evidence to the contrary) basic claim was '... well, it all turned out a bit shit, but [the last] Labour government's heart was in right place [morally] [in contrast to the Tories] '. It's times like this where the moral compass of Labour is shown to be spinning at the same RPM as the contra-rotating eyeballs of those who purport to be leading it.



Of course. Heck, there's plenty of things *I* don't like about this Government (not least, 'make it up as you go along' Brexit). Thing is though, like them or loathe them, at least the Tories are a sensible, intelligent set of grown-up politicians; May is impressive and you can take her seriously?

Labour? Pfft. It's just one laughable belm after another, and I've seen more backbone in a bucket full of jellyfish at the seaside! I mean seriously, would you trust them to buy a pack of first class stamps, let alone provide an Opposition (or, heaven forfend, actually run the country? Can you imagine what that would look like??) They are simply a pathetic joke, and beyond parody. If they are the Opposition we apparently so desperately need for a functioning Parliamentary Democracy, heaven help us.

There is absolutely nothing adult about the government at all, right now. They may present a stronger voice in an interview but the Brexit planning is a shambles. May is there on TV touting "good deal or no deal" when the no deal option (WTO rules) is astonishingly ruinous. Tory MPs walking out of planning sessions because reports produced by their own planning committees are 'too negative'.

Corbyn and Labour are a joke right now, but the Tories have absolutely no idea what they're doing, they're just getting away with it because the entire of the print media is on a jingoistic Brexit high.

May would rather comment on Easter eggs than disagree with Howard's comment about INVADING SPAIN for god's sake.

May is impressive? She's a complete coward who's so terrified of her own eurosceptic right that she's completely flip-flopped and is driving the country off a cliff.

When she's not busy cuddling up to vile autocracies like Saudi Arabia, that is.