Westminstenders: Johnson v Stewart

[RedToothBrush]

Debate time.

He said something to Ian Blackford I this on the liveblog I was following, but Ian Blackford was allowed to remain in the chamber was he not? So Bercow let it go, QED.

I don't know what the rules are/precedent is about asking him to leave the chamber.

Does that mean you don't think he is racist?

Does that mean you don't think he is racist?

Or do you think he is racist but shouldn’t be called out for it because you agree with the sentiments? How else can you defend him Louise?

Boris Johnson is clearly a remainer in sheep's clothing.

www.facebook.com/1691455784407633/posts/2449074521979085/

Basically the link is from Jeremy Vine on Facebook on an anecdote about the two times he met Boris Johnson at two different awards ceremonies. Boris arrived late to both, clearly not prepared for both, had no idea where he was and used the same speech, written on both occasions on the back of a menu with a borrowed pen. The first heading was 'Sheep'.

The Jeremy Vine story underlines yet again what a total fraud Johnson is. When he's not playing the bumbling buffoon there's really not much to him - just a v unpleasant, morally vacuous human being with huge personal ambition.

You are not allowed to call anyone a racist in the Chamber. Ian Blackford was invited to retract his statement that Johnstone was a racist. He declined and went on to call him a racist again, giving "watermelon smiles and letterboxes" as examples of Johnstone's racism

Protocol dictates that Blackford should have been evicted from the chamber.

Protocol should possibly have been followed.

But WOW just WOW

As a Scot should I be fearful for my future if that man becomes PM?

with Johnson as soon as his comments and gaffs are passed of by his supporters of oh it’s just a ‘Borisism’ he doesn’t mean it that way. Once it becomes excused it makes the horrible experiences of Hunky and others more common. He could be PM.

Random not just Scotland awful things were written about Liverpool too.

While I think that Blackford wasted his questions , when asked to retract, what he actually said was, "Mr Johnson had “called Muslim women letterboxes. He described African people as having watermelon smiles and other disgusting smears. If that’s not racist, I don’t know what is”

Wouldn't people agree that that is true? Subtle point - but unfortunately that is the way the HoP works: he can say that the statements are racist but not that the person is even if he is

I think he also confirmed, when Bercow said to him that if he was going to make statements about another member of the house, he had to have told him in advance, that he had done so but dh interrupted during that bit, so he might have said he didn't, not that he did

He also called people in Africa 'picaninnies' and has made several references to Africans being cannibal type tribespeople

I can see why you can't use personal insults like 'stupid', 'idiot', etc. I think 'racist', 'sexist' and similar should be allowed as otherwise how does one stand up to them if you can't call out what they are?

Johnstone's opinions on Scotland are well documented. We should all be fearful for the future.

In this digital age you need to be careful that your witty soundbites and provocative headlines don't come back to bite you on the bum.

Blackford just reminding us that Johnstone is also racist against Scotland, a country he is about to become Prime Minister of.

I think Blackford wanted to be evicted from the Chamber and receive the usual sanction of a ban. Bercow unitentionally foiled his plan by taking the opportunity to stick two fingers up at Johnstone.

If there’s a second referendum of May’s WA vs Remain the leaver population will go mad.

The thing is - we just have to let them go mad. And in fairness to them, they have a right to be mad. They were sold a lie. They were told something was going to be easy when it wasn't. They believe that most countries trade solely on WTO rules. They think that learning we've sort of rolled over trading agreements with Switzerland and South Korea is good news. They don't believe no deal will cause harm - or if they do they believe they are happy to suck up that harm. The trouble is none of this is true. If a no dealer can't get their medication they will not simply say 'what price liberty?' and die with a smile on their face because their passport is blue. They will want solutions. And if they are happy to die from lack of something so basic , which we've always had and had no reason to give up ... it is not democracy to let part of the population vote to remove medication access from the other part (or their citizenship and rights come to that).

There is nothing that will ever appease no deal leavers. What they want is both harmful and technically illegal. Pandering to them because they will be 'mad' they cannot have this harmful, complex and difficult-but-they-think -is simple- and-is-completely-based-on -fantasy thing has to stop. Because nothing will ever be enough.

Let them be mad. Let them believe they were robbed. Let them think that democracy doesn't work. That is no more harmful (in fact considerably less harmful) than letting the population vote on whether we no deal or not. And - for any of them that are not so far radicalised that they can still be reached - we can always show them the 2016 footage of 'easiest deal in history' 'no one is talking about jeopardising our place in the single market' 'Norway are rich and happy' to prove to them that no, they never did vote for and were not promised no deal - so democracy is working fine.
Anyone too radicalised to accept that - well they need to be treated like any other fundamentalist of a violent religion and given a wide berth. We don't listen to creationist, we don't listen to flat earthers, we don't listen to climate change deniers - we should not be giving no dealers a space in the debate.

Well said Icantreachthepretzels

Well now, last night you may recall I reacted to viewing the debate by wondering where the BBC found its questioners? I got told that @blibblibs "the questioners were the only decent people there"

Suffice it to say, I am rather enjoying the fallout this afternoon as the public statements made by people the BBC hand picked to ask their questions are exposed.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1142423/bbc-tory-leadership-tv-debate-labour-imam-abdullah-patel-aman-thakar-boris-johnson

The thing is - we just have to let them go mad. And in fairness to them, they have a right to be mad. They were sold a lie. They were told something was going to be easy when it wasn't. They believe that most countries trade solely on WTO rules

Maybe you are right. Would it lead to violence? Or are hard core leavers all mouth and no trousers. They can’t be arsed marching in any great number so would they actually do something more violent?

I find it funny when they spout it will be the “end of democracy” and they will “never vote again.” As if them choosing not to vote in the future is some kind of loss.

{Icantreachthepretzels }
I agree with you, but we just need a leader with sufficient guts to actually do it.
Is it too late for Theresa to change her mind?

I'm afraid I'm very much of the opinion that if no dealers get violent because they are denied their fantasies, then that is what the police are for.
A country making policy based on fear of a section rising up in violence is no democracy.
But - if there was going to be violence it would have been on March 30th. I think we're safe.

but we just need a leader with sufficient guts to actually do it.

Yes - our only stumbling block is the uselessness of the people in charge. But then - if the people in charge weren't utterly useless, we would never have got here in the first place.

What will determine whether we have a PV and if so, with what options, will depend entirely on who has power in / over the HoC

If the HoC do not act together and in time, the PM can either directly run out the time, or can collude with JC to call a GE which runs out the time

or the PM can call a GE with No Deal in his manfesto - and win a working majority

Ivan Richards said a coiple of days ago that No Deal is probable, but not inevitable

Suffice it to say, I am rather enjoying the fallout this afternoon as the public statements made by people the BBC hand picked to ask their questions are exposed.

Its why I've stopped watching BBCQT the amount of Tory and Kipper plants in the audience

So we "never give in to terrorists" but must pander to Leavers because they'll be "mad" otherwise

Sorry, the stench of hypocrisy is too much sometimes - even for someone with a pass-plus in extended cynicism like myself.

Are you a Leaver ? Are you unhappy with the way democracy refuses to accommodate your exact world view ? Are you so angry you are prepared to break the law to do something ? Then you, my cunty friend, are a terrorist pure and simple. And as such, you deserve to be subject to the full weight of the law and it's penalties. Fuck you and your jackbooted friends and the tank you rode into town on.

LouiseCollins28
Why does it matter who asked the question when it is the answer from the potential PM that we want to hear.
Scraping the barrel to get your 'outrage' from the Express.

For those of you not wanting to click on the express - this is the guardian link to the same story www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/19/disappointing-and-deluded-imam-lambasts-tory-hopefuls-on-islamophobia

The Imam has tweeted some things about Israel - his response is that he is critical of Israel not Jews.
One other questioner used to work for the Labour party - which the BBC already knew when they chose him to answer the question.

Not exactly fall out. And Abdullah's opinions on Israel don't detract from the questions about climate change, social care or the Irish border.
The candidates were still as awful as we thought they were. The candidates still asked good and pertinent questions - and the ones that said they did not feel reassured when the candidates failed to answer their questions were still right to do so.

Patrick Henegen @pjhenegen
Support for Leave falling the most in the North West and North East - from Nov last year
REPORT

You might wonder whether these estimates are robust. Do they change much if we change some of the assumptions?

If we ignore questions of turnout, and assume that everyone votes in a fresh referendum, then the figures don’t change much. We go from 45.6 percent to 45.9 percent - a tiny difference.

What about our confidence in the estimates for each place – can we summarize these estimates in a single figure, or do we need a range of figures?

If we’d conducted a standard poll in each area, then the margin of error for each local authority would be plus or minus three percent. But because we haven’t conducted 380 thousand interviews, we have to settle for something less – plus or minus five percent in each case.

That means that although we know a lot of areas have switched, we can only be really very confident about a much smaller group. Here are the areas most likely to have switched:

• Nottingham (40.1% Leave now but was 50.8% Leave then).
• Luton (43.8% Leave now but was 56.5% Leave then).
• Slough (41.6% Leave now but was 54.3% Leave then).
• Southampton (41.8% Leave now but was 53.8% Leave then).
• High Peak (44.3% Leave now but was 50.5% Leave then).
• Watford (43.6% Leave now but was 50.3% Leave then).
• Canterbury (44.6% Leave now but was 51% Leave then).
• Cherwell (44.5% Leave now but was 50.3% Leave then).
• Reigate and Banstead (44.9% Leave now but was 50.5% Leave then).
• Knowsley (39.7% Leave now but was 51.6% Leave then).
• North Tyneside (45.5% Leave now but was 53.4% Leave then).
• Birmingham (41.8% Leave now but was 50.4% Leave then).
• Sutton (44.9% Leave now but was 53.7% Leave then).
• Isle of Anglesey (44.2% Leave now but was 50.9% Leave then).
• Swansea (43.2% Leave now but was 51.5% Leave then).
• Rhondda Cynon Taf (43.5% Leave now but was 53.7% Leave then).

As well as asking how people would vote in a fresh referendum, we also asked how people would view particular proposals, and how they would vote on an eventual deal.

Here were the particular proposals we asked, together with the overall support (not including those that said don’t know)

• new checks being introduced on goods crossing the Irish sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK (41%)

• UK and EU citizens who wished to do so being able to live and work in each other’s countries (76%)

• Limitations on the UK’s ability to make trade deals with countries outside the EU (25%)

• Following EU regulations on manufactured goods such as fridges, vacuum cleaners and light bulbs (62%)

• Support for the deal as it stands (43%)

The word "Paki" in the West of Scotland didn't used to be an insult - it was an accurate description of where the Scottish Asians are from (mostly the Punjab). I have had to have strong words with ds when he was younger that just because his friends call themselves Pakis and don't consider it an insult, it is not appropriate for him ever to use the term

Have had long conversations with the Indian side of my neighbours (wide is white Scottish, husband is Scottish-Indian not Pakistani ) who have said that here in Glasgow, it is not perceived as an insult - but that elsewhere in the UK it is indeed used as an insult

It helped get the message across to ds that it wasn't just us being uptight PC parents when Freddy Mercury got upset in the film Bohemian Rhapsody about being called a Paki when he was in fact from Zanzibar.