DavPaz wrote:
How many defections will it take for the Tories to lose their majority?
Wikipedia says:
Conservative Party (314)
Democratic Unionist Party (10)
Total:324
Labour Party (247)
Scottish National Party (35)
Liberal Democrats (11)
The Independent Group (11)
Plaid Cymru (4)
Green Party (1)
Independent (8)
Total: 317
So assuming all Independent mps vote against the government (I think there are some Tory leaning people in there) then if 4 more switch over they don't have a majority.
Boris Johnson et al should be proud. Their beloved Churchill crossed the floor twice.
Didn't know he was on Strictly.
Things are too much in flux for this to be super meaningful, but it might stiffen the spines of other MPs considering crossing the aisle.
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1098192449766338560
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1098192449766338560
🧨 BREAKING: Times/YouGov voter intention poll
— Henry Zeffman (@hzeffman) February 20, 2019
Con 38
Lab 26
*TIG 14*
LD 7
SNP/Plaid 5
Other 11
(Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding would not vote and don’t knows) https://t.co/3TfImvFDv4
Who is “other” and how are they getting eleven percent?
I mean, it can’t be Martin Bell any more
UKIP/Green/Monster Raving Loony
Sinn Fein & DUP too, I imagine.
I mean, you know you’re a political force to be reckoned with when the first line on your website contains the phrase: “(not the LibDems)“.
Here's your Morning Bercow!:
Quote:
Mr Ellis, be quiet now and for the rest of the session. You used to practise as a barrister. You did not make those sorts of harrumphing noises in the courts; or if you did, no wonder you no longer practise there.
He's not joined TIG though.
He's independent of the Independent Group.
As a Brexitbee, he's going to find out what it's like to be outside a larger organisation. Think of all that sovereignty he's regained.
Bit of a random WTF Trump moment for you.
I like the way his own guy basically defuses the situation by talking to him like petulant six year old.
And it works.
https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/10 ... 9417204736
I like the way his own guy basically defuses the situation by talking to him like petulant six year old.
And it works.
https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/10 ... 9417204736
Jaw dropping pic.twitter.com/kXKs083cpM
— Jonathan Freedland (@Freedland) February 25, 2019
It's good that the opt-out organ donation bill has passed all its Parliamentary stages, but I really don't like any piece of legislation being known as '[Child's name]'s Law'.
Any proposed legislation needs to be judged on its merits, and referring to it as anything other than 'Anodyne Bill Title (Number 2)' suggests that opposing some or all of it makes you a bad person.
That said, I really grudgingly admit that some of the painful acronyms used in the US Congress are rather clever.
BBC article.
Any proposed legislation needs to be judged on its merits, and referring to it as anything other than 'Anodyne Bill Title (Number 2)' suggests that opposing some or all of it makes you a bad person.
That said, I really grudgingly admit that some of the painful acronyms used in the US Congress are rather clever.
BBC article.
"It will still be open to relatives to block a donation, so it will be important that families discuss their wishes."
Ugh. The fact that relatives of the deceased can overrule a card-carrying donor still makes me angry.
Unless that's not how it works and Casualty has lied to me.
Ugh. The fact that relatives of the deceased can overrule a card-carrying donor still makes me angry.
Unless that's not how it works and Casualty has lied to me.
My understanding of it (probably wrong) is that the relatives can only block a donation where it's unclear what the deceased's wishes were - so in the context of a card-carrying donor, that's pretty clear.
GazChap wrote:
My understanding of it (probably wrong) is that the relatives can only block a donation where it's unclear what the deceased's wishes were - so in the context of a card-carrying donor, that's pretty clear.
I think you are probably wrong, yes. My understanding is that families can overrule even if they are card-carrying donors.
Lonewolves wrote:
GazChap wrote:
My understanding of it (probably wrong) is that the relatives can only block a donation where it's unclear what the deceased's wishes were - so in the context of a card-carrying donor, that's pretty clear.
I think you are probably wrong, yes. My understanding is that families can overrule even if they are card-carrying donors.
I'm unable to find anything conclusive. From the organ donation register's website:
Quote:
If your family, or those closest to you, object to donation even when you have given your explicit permission (either by telling relatives, friends or clinical staff, by joining the NHS Organ Donor Register or by carrying a donor card) healthcare professionals will discuss the matter sensitively with them.
They will be encouraged to accept your decision and it will be made clear that they do not have the legal right to veto or overrule your decision.
They will be encouraged to accept your decision and it will be made clear that they do not have the legal right to veto or overrule your decision.
So sounds like they can still technically block it, but they have no legal right to if your wishes have been made clear by being on the register/carrying the card - but I expect the Organ Donor team won't want to ruffle any feathers :/
According to Cohen's testimony to the US Consgress, Donald Trump is a liar, a cheater, and racist.
Giphy "mind-blown":
https://media2.giphy.com/media/pqjXQeRwoyozWNjp8A/giphy-loop.mp4
Of all the exceprts in the Guardian, this one stood out for me as emblematic of how I see the current tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
Giphy "mind-blown":
https://media2.giphy.com/media/pqjXQeRwoyozWNjp8A/giphy-loop.mp4
Of all the exceprts in the Guardian, this one stood out for me as emblematic of how I see the current tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
Quote:
Mr Trump directed me to find a straw bidder to purchase a portrait of him that was being auctioned at an Art Hamptons Event. The objective was to ensure that his portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon.
The portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. Mr Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organisation, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself.
The portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. Mr Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organisation, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself.
Classy...
::Curb Your Enthusiasm music plays::
https://twitter.com/Nicholas_Mairs/stat ... 1202666496
https://twitter.com/Nicholas_Mairs/stat ... 1202666496
Among some confusion Sajid Javid confirms ministers will back the Costa amendment on guaranteeing EU citizens rights under no-deal pic.twitter.com/C2UnOnxf5J
— Nicholas Mairs (@Nicholas_Mairs) February 27, 2019
Fucking hell.
Labour are not taking the whip from or suspending Chris Williamson:
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/statu ... 9778706432
This is the guy who said, to a round of applause in a Momentum meeting, in a week where multiple Labour MPs quit over anti-Semitism:
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/statu ... 9778706432
BREAKING: Chris Williamson has been issued with a “notice of investigation for a pattern of behaviour†by Labour, spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn says. He will not be suspended during the investigation.
— Kevin Schofield (@PolhomeEditor) February 27, 2019
This is the guy who said, to a round of applause in a Momentum meeting, in a week where multiple Labour MPs quit over anti-Semitism:
Quote:
I have got to say I think our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion… we have backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we have been too apologetic.... We've done more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any political party.
Ugh. Twitter thread with a trawl through a number of pro-Corbyn Facebook groups. Certainly no anti-Semitism here, nope.
Corbyn's die hard fans look indistinguishable from Trumpers to me.
https://twitter.com/l_attfield/status/1 ... 5025242112
Corbyn's die hard fans look indistinguishable from Trumpers to me.
https://twitter.com/l_attfield/status/1 ... 5025242112
Tonight I went into the group ‘Jeremy Corbyn- True Socialism’ , this is the first post I saw.
— Luisa Attfield (@l_attfield) March 2, 2019
Antisemitism is rampant and it is being done in your name @jeremycorbyn pic.twitter.com/tgECAo7RMY
I, wait, who?
Check out @HouseofCommons’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/stat ... 6986711042
Check out @HouseofCommons’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/stat ... 6986711042
Currently, only the eldest son in a family can succeed a hereditary title. @PhilipDaviesUK is introducing a Bill to enable the eldest daughter to do the same. Here's a one minute summary, and footage from the Chamber: https://t.co/QUpGAuBNiD pic.twitter.com/QNI9CCHLBz
— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) March 5, 2019
This is the most important issue facing the country right now, right?
Equality starts at the top, obviously. This is the same kind of nonsense as trying to encourage more women CEOs. There are a lot more problems further down, but these play better to Tory voters.
DavPaz wrote:
This is the most important issue facing the country right now, right?
"Other stuff" can't just stop because something else is going on.
It's simultaneously both an advance and a retreat for equality!
Lonewolves wrote:
Equality starts at the top, obviously. This is the same kind of nonsense as trying to encourage more women CEOs. There are a lot more problems further down, but these play better to Tory voters.
Interestingly, there is a current issue for female equality in tech, and it's not precisely one that you may expect.
There is a lot of focus and effort going into make STEM more inclusive for women from the ground up, which is obviously a good thing. But one of the side effects is the women who have battled through and made it to mid-tier level are actually getting less support than they used to have, as most of the focus is on the grass roots. Great for the future, but sucks for them right now. Low numbers of women CEOs is a direct symptom of that, so I don't think it's fair to say it's nonsense. The glass ceiling is still very much in effect, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.
Trooper wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Equality starts at the top, obviously. This is the same kind of nonsense as trying to encourage more women CEOs. There are a lot more problems further down, but these play better to Tory voters.
Interestingly, there is a current issue for female equality in tech, and it's not precisely one that you may expect.
There is a lot of focus and effort going into make STEM more inclusive for women from the ground up, which is obviously a good thing. But one of the side effects is the women who have battled through and made it to mid-tier level are actually getting less support than they used to have, as most of the focus is on the grass roots. Great for the future, but sucks for them right now. Low numbers of women CEOs is a direct symptom of that, so I don't think it's fair to say it's nonsense. The glass ceiling is still very much in effect, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.
Interesting, isn't it, that there's only so much energy for this - so helping the grassroots, denies the middle. I mean, what a shit structure!
Kern wrote:
To be fair, we do have a bit of a problem with potholes around here. He probably gets many a complaint, and I know he's seen as receptive to his constituents.
Yeah, this is all stuff I actually want my MP to be doing, so I'm not sure why we feel the need to criticise him for it.
Aren't potholes within local government remit? It's certainly all my local councillors bang on about
They are, but maybe an MP shaming them up in the Houses of Commons would make them try a little harder to fix them.
SimCity 2000 warned us about the dangers of cutting highway funding.
DavPaz wrote:
Aren't potholes within local government remit? It's certainly all my local councillors bang on about
Most roads are, but key trunk routes, such as the A34, are the responsibility of Highways England. And yes, councillors love their potholes.
Grim... wrote:
Yeah, this is all stuff I actually want my MP to be doing, so I'm not sure why we feel the need to criticise him for it.
My reaction, at least, was "I can't wait to see how Grayling somehow fucks up this perfectly reasonable sounding idea."
We should write for the 'Now Show'.
All he’s doing is asking for the guarantee on repairs by private firms local council’s employ be extended from 2 years to 5 years.
This is about as little as you can do to appease a pothole obsessed press without actually doing something. I can’t see this having much impact on the state of the roads or lead to a greater number of repairs.
This is about as little as you can do to appease a pothole obsessed press without actually doing something. I can’t see this having much impact on the state of the roads or lead to a greater number of repairs.
Satsuma wrote:
This is about as little as you can do to appease a pothole obsessed press without actually doing something. I can’t see this having much impact on the state of the roads or lead to a greater number of repairs.
Never underestimate The Grayling.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Yeah, this is all stuff I actually want my MP to be doing, so I'm not sure why we feel the need to criticise him for it.
My reaction, at least, was "I can't wait to see how Grayling somehow fucks up this perfectly reasonable sounding idea."
Mine, too
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Satsuma wrote:
This is about as little as you can do to appease a pothole obsessed press without actually doing something. I can’t see this having much impact on the state of the roads or lead to a greater number of repairs.
Never underestimate The Grayling.
He has contracted the repair work out to his mate, who has never repaired a pothole, has no machinery or staff, and has no intention of actually repairing a thing, but who is coincidentally a major Tory donor.
It cost £46.2m.
(Not really, but it wouldn’t surprise me)