|
I like it when bercow has to call order on something Labour are doing and then spends most of the time telling junior tories to shut the gently caress up
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
If the Tories thought this through properly, they wouldn't really want to get rid of Bercow, as the frontrunner to succeed him is almost certainly the no-nonsense Labour Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
TinTower posted:If the Tories thought this through properly, they wouldn't really want to get rid of Bercow, as the frontrunner to succeed him is almost certainly the no-nonsense Labour Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle. whereupon they can promptly claim forever that it's labour bias whenever they do anything awful
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/830701303026167808 labour are opposing brexit probably shouldn't be in large letters
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever heard of a speaker being criticised for partisan bias before - is that a thing or are we using our imaginations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
It's depressing as hell seeing a labour candidate boasting of their party's pro Brexit credentials but I guess that's the word from the top.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think I've ever heard of a speaker being criticised for partisan bias before - is that a thing or are we using our imaginations? we're not in the 1990s anymore dorothy, lying and screaming about partisanship is the new hip thing. I fully expect it from the tories and papers as soon as they have a chance. Pissflaps posted:It's depressing as hell seeing a labour candidate boasting of their party's pro Brexit credentials but I guess that's the word from the top. I can't wait to hear you've voted lib dem
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Stoke voted to leave the EU by 69.4% to 30.6% remain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Surely Nuttall should be utterly destroyed by his own lies regarding Hillsborough but unfortunately if this last 12 months has shown anything, it's that life isn't a Scooby Doo cartoon and just because a villain is unmasked it doesn't mean it's the end of the matter  Anyone catch Jack Buckby on Channel 4 debate the other night? What a detestable little shite he is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Jose posted:labour are opposing brexit probably shouldn't be in large letters the word FIB is in even larger letters just before it, and that's a small word that small children can read and understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:the word FIB is in even larger letters just before it, and that's a small word that small children can read and understand. this is stoke we're talking about 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think I've ever heard of a speaker being criticised for partisan bias before - is that a thing or are we using our imaginations? The Tories have been doing it for ages, especially during the plot to oust him in 2015. E.g. quote:Mr Duncan told the BBC’s Daily Politics Show yesterday: ‘The top rule for any Speaker is that they are politically impartial and they stand back from expressing party political opinions of any sort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I dont really get it. Everyone knew Trump was going to be batshit insane. How does Trump turning out to be, surprise surprise, batshit insane change anything? Are we supposed to think that Clinton is a saint now? A hell of a lot of people seem to have voted for Trump thinking he was not going to be. And a lot of people stayed home because well they're both terrible or some middle-of-the-road bollocks. e; and yeah with the world the way it is, 'ordinarily flawed US president' is loving saintly, are you kidding me?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Prince John posted:The Tories have been doing it for ages, especially during the plot to oust him in 2015. It seems particularly odd coming from the Tories though, as Brexit has been sold as something which is "bigger" than party politics. Bercow didn't make any party political statement; he explained how he voted in a referendum. Is something only politically neutral where no party has an opinion on it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Dange posted:It seems particularly odd coming from the Tories though, as Brexit has been sold as something which is "bigger" than party politics. Bercow didn't make any party political statement; he explained how he voted in a referendum. It's politically neutral when you think it is objectively correct and if you think it's wrong it's political bias.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Stoke voted to leave the EU by 69.4% to 30.6% remain. That's why I'm not actually asking a rhetorical question here. Stoke might be an interesting test for whether going full in on pro-Brexit delivers results, or, I suspect, fucks over Labour because they need the vote of that 30.6. If Brexit Labour can't even win in a hard-leave constituency like that, then lol. Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:we're not in the 1990s anymore dorothy, lying and screaming about partisanship is the new hip thing. I fully expect it from the tories and papers as soon as they have a chance. So that's a 'no', then. quote:I can't wait to hear you've voted lib dem You probably already did. Prince John posted:The Tories have been doing it for ages, especially during the plot to oust him in 2015. Yeah but that's not them saying 'he/she cant be trusted because he/she comes from the tories/labour'. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
remember the tory ads saying corbyn was a threat to national security? lol thats nothing https://twitter.com/Scott_Gilmore/status/830803255479242752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think I've ever heard of a speaker being criticised for partisan bias before - is that a thing or are we using our imaginations? Every speaker is accused of it, to a greater or lesser extent, and it's mostly ignored because every politician passionately believes that everyone else is biased against them. I'm not aware of a speaker so willing to use his position to further their own opinions though, that's a bit of a major faux pas for someone who officially doesn't have any opinion whatsoever and is just an avatar for the rules of the House.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
The reason the Tories hate Bercow (and Hoyle) is because he lets the Opposition speak without the braying from the Tory benches.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The reason the Tories hate Bercow (and Hoyle) is because he lets the Opposition speak without the braying from the Tory benches. He also eats a Tory seat
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
if you bray in parliament you should be put down like a rabid dog tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:He also eats a Tory seat let's not bring his personal life into this
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
I liked this article in the Times about Remainers: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...434860af1714bb0 But mostly because of the massive unironic Godwin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think I've ever heard of a speaker being criticised for partisan bias before - is that a thing or are we using our imaginations? I vaguely remember Michael Martin getting it fairly frequently, but he was just poo poo so it kind of got added to the laundry list of complaints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Marmaduke! posted:I liked this article in the Times about Remainers: I like the confusion between intellectuals and the evidence they produce, it's a great attack against something nobody worth listening to has ever claimed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
One_Wing posted:I mean to be fair she's literally using it today to rip into David Davis for his appalling behaviour towards Diane Abbot, and this isn't the only time I've seen her launch a broadside at the actual baddies. I also do find her relatively direct style of writing and willingness to call bullshit on things quite endearing and effective. Ultimately the problem is that if she didn't spend so much time slagging off the party and it's leadership, the media would ignore her and her tweets about sexism would go totally unreported. She only has a profile and a platform because she's a complete sell-out who does a better job of damaging Labour than most Tory MPs. If she had stuck behind her convictions and quit when she said she was going to, after Corbyn was re-elected, I might have a bit of respect for her. Instead she's happy to be an anchor dragging the party down provided she gets to keep her high paying job. LemonDrizzle posted:If you're the person conducting the focus group, no such point exists - the exercise will be completely useless if you start booting people out when they say things you would rather not hear. You might not kick them out of the focus group, but there should be some sort of filter preventing stuff like pure appearance-based criticism from making it to the party higher-ups and eventually the newspapers. Why even write down things like 'charity-shop looking'? I mean if the person in question called her a fat bitch instead would we see that printed in the Times as an official focus group opinion? At a certain point the opinion expressed reflects badly on the person holding it and has nothing to do with the MP in question. jabby fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/frank-walter-steinmeier-elected-germany-president-donald-trump-critic- New centre-left president for Germany? How is this not all over the news by the way? I imagine this is slightly a good thing? Or, again, did he vote to institute mandatory baby-eating at some point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
jabby posted:You might not kick them out of the focus group, but there should be some sort of filter preventing stuff like pure appearance-based criticism from making it to the party higher-ups and eventually the newspapers. Why even write down things like 'charity-shop looking'? I mean if the person in question called her a fat bitch instead would we see that printed in the Times as an official focus group opinion? At a certain point the opinion expressed reflects badly on the person holding it and has nothing to do with the MP in question. I think it would be a mistake to ignore what people say just because we don't like the exact way they say it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
jabby posted:You might not kick them out of the focus group, but there should be some sort of filter preventing stuff like pure appearance-based criticism from making it to the party higher-ups and eventually the newspapers. Why even write down things like 'charity-shop looking'? I mean if the person in question called her a fat bitch instead would we see that printed in the Times as an official focus group opinion? At a certain point the opinion expressed reflects badly on the person holding it and has nothing to do with the MP in question. Focus grouping is all about finding the lowest common denominator to appeal to. People are often fundamentally poo poo and advertising and PR is all about exploiting that to best effect. If you got rid of every arsehole in the room the exercise itself would be pointless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/frank-walter-steinmeier-elected-germany-president-donald-trump-critic- Everyone is busy looking at a massive tire and trash fire across the western horizon. (And a smaller one thats closer)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/frank-walter-steinmeier-elected-germany-president-donald-trump-critic- When Schroeder caused the european debt crisis with Agenda 2010 he was an advisor and whip who brought together the green/socdem support while Schroeder had a loving tantrum about it. His foreign policy has been even handed and he was an ally of france in their attempts to forge an anti US iraq coalition. e; I confused two key players so rewrite was needed before more people quoted me Spangly A fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think it would be a mistake to ignore what people say just because we don't like the exact way they say it. What's the more acceptable way to say you don't like a female politician's appearance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think I've ever heard of a speaker being criticised for partisan bias before - is that a thing or are we using our imaginations? Well your memory of the New Labour years is selective. quote:On 1 November 2006, during Prime Minister's Questions, Martin caused uproar in the House of Commons by ruling out of order a question from Leader of the Opposition David Cameron in which he challenged Tony Blair over the future leadership of the Labour Party. Martin stated that the purpose of Prime Minister's Questions was for the House to question the Prime Minister on the actions of the government. This caused such dissent amongst MPs that Martin threatened to suspend the session. Cameron then re-worded the question so he asked about Tony Blair's future as Prime Minister rather than leader of the Labour Party, which Martin accepted. Conservative MPs threatened to walk out if a similar event occurred in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Well your memory of the New Labour years is selective. Still mourning the happier times back then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Still mourning the happier times back then. Lots of things were better. But let's face it they failed to reform economic policy away from neoliberalism (so has wasted massive sums on PFI and meant that our response to the financial crash was the damp squib of bankers QE which has inflated asset prices for the over 50s and screwed over everyone else, lost Ed M the 2015 GE and meant the coalition implemented austerity) and engaged in an unjustified war which has massively contributed towards the continued instability of the middle east and the refugee crisis. Yeah. But apart from that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
jabby posted:You might not kick them out of the focus group, but there should be some sort of filter preventing stuff like pure appearance-based criticism from making it to the party higher-ups and eventually the newspapers. Why even write down things like 'charity-shop looking'? I mean if the person in question called her a fat bitch instead would we see that printed in the Times as an official focus group opinion? At a certain point the opinion expressed reflects badly on the person holding it and has nothing to do with the MP in question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:People do judge each other on appearance, though - one of Ed Miliband's big problems was that people saw him as a goofy-looking nerd who wouldn't be a credible prime minister. If you're scoping people out for a political leadership position and for whatever reason, everyone you ask says that there's something about one person's appearance or self-presentation that makes it hard to take them seriously, that's important and useful information even if it's unfair and unreasonable that the person in question is being judged in that way. Agree with this 100%. It sucks, but better to find out in a focus group than on the campaign trail before a general election. You've got to work with the public you've got.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:People do judge each other on appearance, though - one of Ed Miliband's big problems was that people saw him as a goofy-looking nerd who wouldn't be a credible prime minister. If you're scoping people out for a political leadership position and for whatever reason, everyone you ask says that there's something about one person's appearance or self-presentation that makes it hard to take them seriously, that's important and useful information even if it's unfair and unreasonable that the person in question is being judged in that way. yeah it's definitely a legitimate political system that cares this much about appearance and not a sham that needs so, so much fire
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Well your memory of the New Labour years is selective. Ok well that's definitely an example of something - though I think if you were to be honest you'd admit you used google rather than your own memory to retrieve it. However I was specifically interested in examples of behaviour such as Spangly A described: criticism of a speaker based on their party political background. I don't think yours counts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:52
|
|