Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

Just wondering what ailment you have which does not have a proven cure from modern medicine but for which Chinese "medicine" does.
Mac is the secretive one, not me.

[McLaren]

Very rough day for Boris at PMQs, I wonder how the SR's will defend him this time?

[super_realist]

Not that difficult Mac, you can't have seen many if you thought that was tough.
Starmer is rightly being quite fair and reasonable and not doing what the previous incumbent would have done. Thank goodness they got rid of Corbyn who was an embarrassment in PMQ's.

[dynamark]

I thought that was a reasonable PMQ sight more civilised when no one is there.
Starmer is holding back as you can see but doing the right thing.After all they are not the govt.Boris wanting to make a quip but staying sensible.
The worst one today was the labour MP for Brent on Jeremy Vine accusing Boris of sending folk out to get the virus -disgusting individual -for good ness sake Boris nearly died .
And yes JC would have been well out of his depth in recent weeks.

[super_realist]

Dawn Butler is Labour's new Dianne Flabbot Dyna, she's got previous for stupid statements.
She's the one who you might remember claimed there were 3000 rough sleepers in her constituency.

[beninho]

Dawn Butler is Labour's new Dianne Flabbot Dyna, she's got previous for stupid statements.
She's the one who you might remember claimed there were 3000 rough sleepers in her constituency.

How many did she have? Was it just a one off count, or a regular count with total numbers. Considering at one point over 8k were noted as rough sleeping in London, 3k overall for one constituency over a period isn't unrealistic. Unfortunately.

And Boris, got a beating in pmq. Cones yo something when he lies his way out if things.

[Soul Requiem]

There's a real shocker, Ben & Mac think Boris took a beating in PMQs. In other shocking news the sky is still blue and the Pope is a catholic.

I don't think Starmer is coming across all that well to be honest. He's far too lightweight to be party leader.

[super_realist]

Dawn Butler is Labour's new Dianne Flabbot Dyna, she's got previous for stupid statements.
She's the one who you might remember claimed there were 3000 rough sleepers in her constituency.

How many did she have? Was it just a one off count, or a regular count with total numbers. Considering at one point over 8k were noted as rough sleeping in London, 3k overall for one constituency over a period isn't unrealistic. Unfortunately.

And Boris, got a beating in pmq. Cones yo something when he lies his way out if things.

When she was asked there wasn't 5000 rough sleepers in all of England, yet 3000 were apparently in her constituency.
She also said if Labour lost the election it would be because of racism, and claimed that 99% of animals were attracted to their own gender. She's a buffoon.

[beninho]

There's a real shocker, Ben & Mac think Boris took a beating in PMQs. In other shocking news the sky is still blue and the Pope is a catholic.

I don't think Starmer is coming across all that well to be honest. He's far too lightweight to be party leader.

While sr2 thinks Boris did well. What a surprise.

You not concerned about the lie?

[Soul Requiem]

There's a real shocker, Ben & Mac think Boris took a beating in PMQs. In other shocking news the sky is still blue and the Pope is a catholic.

I don't think Starmer is coming across all that well to be honest. He's far too lightweight to be party leader.

While sr2 thinks Boris did well. What a surprise.

You not concerned about the lie?

If you want to go around getting upset about every little thing then crack on, you seem under the impression that every single person has the same priorities they don't. I go to work and I enjoy my life as best I can at the moment outside of that, you on the other hand trawl the internet to find things to fake outrage at.

[super_realist]

Why don't you explain what the lie was you are referring to?

[beninho]

Why don't you explain what the lie was you are referring to?

Its in the news, have a look.

[beninho]

There's a real shocker, Ben & Mac think Boris took a beating in PMQs. In other shocking news the sky is still blue and the Pope is a catholic.

I don't think Starmer is coming across all that well to be honest. He's far too lightweight to be party leader.

While sr2 thinks Boris did well. What a surprise.

You not concerned about the lie?

If you want to go around getting upset about every little thing then crack on, you seem under the impression that every single person has the same priorities they don't. I go to work and I enjoy my life as best I can at the moment outside of that, you on the other hand trawl the internet to find things to fake outrage at.

Trawl the Internet, says a man on a golf board who I've not seen mention any interest in golf

[dynamark]

Dawn Butler correct very strange person TBH .Hard to believe folk voted for her seems as thick as they come and thanks she doesn't have any real influence

[super_realist]

Why don't you explain what the lie was you are referring to?

Its in the news, have a look.

Fair enough, if he told a fib then he should retract what he's said.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy/super/soul

Do you fancy jumping off the Boris appolgist bandwagon?

https://www.ft.com/content/40fc8904-febf-4a66-8d1c-ea3e48bbc034

Confirmation bias...

[navyblueshorts]

Super

It was an FT article. UK excess deaths now at 50000+over covid period.

And?

[navyblueshorts]

Unsurprisingly, my point has been twisted away from what it was. I think it looks bad, I only ever said looks bad. And I think that Mps shouldn't be allowed to act as consultants/ lobbyists. On this case its a tory case. Show me a similar labour case and I'll give an answer on that.

I still think it looks bad though.

Do people have no issue with MPs being paid lobbyists?

Agree w/ this. That said, what about paying them salaries commensurate w/ running a nation > 65m people? pay peanuts, get monkeys and all that. Decent wage == no excuse.

[super_realist]

Unsurprisingly, my point has been twisted away from what it was. I think it looks bad, I only ever said looks bad. And I think that Mps shouldn't be allowed to act as consultants/ lobbyists. On this case its a tory case. Show me a similar labour case and I'll give an answer on that.

I still think it looks bad though.

Do people have no issue with MPs being paid lobbyists?

Agree w/ this. That said, what about paying them salaries commensurate w/ running a nation > 65m people? pay peanuts, get monkeys and all that. Decent wage == no excuse.

The majority of MP's aren't running the country though, they are simply representing their constituencies and will say virtually nothing in Parliament as back bench MP's and no make no real influence. . 82k plus expenses, allowances, gold plated pension as well as other benefits seems pretty good compensation for that.

If you had them being paid more then the tinpot MP's from the devolved parts of the country would also demand more.

[JAS]

Dawn Butler correct very strange person TBH .Hard to believe folk voted for her seems as thick as they come and thanks she doesn't have any real influence

I always found it astonishing the size of the majority Abbot always got. However I have heard it said that she was always a great constituency MP. I guess it’s more about knowing the demographics of your constituency and being able to empathise with their issues, I’d hazard a guess Butler falls into the same category. Having said that, there’s a world of difference between being a good hardworking constituency MP and being on the front bench/cabinet/shadow cabinet. No matter how good they are locally, neither should be allowed anywhere near the front bench.

[super_realist]

I can understand both could be good constituency MP's but given their records and terrible performances at the front end of politics it seems obvious why they hold or have held their front bench or shadow cabinet positions. Won't sit well with the likes of Mac, but most likely a box ticking exercise for inclusive purposes which I'm sure all parties do to some degree. Some MP's will be there on merit, some however completely hopeless.

[kwinigolfer]

I can understand both could be good constituency MP's but given their records and terrible performances at the front end of politics it seems obvious why they hold or have held their front bench or shadow cabinet positions. Won't sit well with the likes of Mac, but most likely a box ticking exercise for inclusive purposes which I'm sure all parties do to some degree. Some MP's will be there on merit, some however completely hopeless.

There's a lot of that about . . . . . . . . It all depends on your base.

[JAS]

Unsurprisingly, my point has been twisted away from what it was. I think it looks bad, I only ever said looks bad. And I think that Mps shouldn't be allowed to act as consultants/ lobbyists. On this case its a tory case. Show me a similar labour case and I'll give an answer on that.

I still think it looks bad though.

Do people have no issue with MPs being paid lobbyists?

Agree w/ this. That said, what about paying them salaries commensurate w/ running a nation > 65m people? pay peanuts, get monkeys and all that. Decent wage == no excuse.

I’d tend to go the other way Navy, I think respect for MPs is at an all time low and that’s saying something after the 90’s. I’d say they need to win back respect over a looooong period of time before they have any significant re-evaluation of their role. There also needs to be more scrutiny of their expenses....still!! As Super said they get a gilt edged pension and their careers (if they’re not coffin dodgers when they get booted out) won’t exactly be barren of offers if they want to work AFTER serving.
At the end of the day they will know what the salary is before they stand so it’s their choice. If this crisis has taught us anything it’s taught us that we really should have a MASSIVE re-evaluation of what constitutes valuable roles in society and start to realign wages to reflect value. Personally I think medical staff and nurses in particular deserve a LOT more than a Thursday night clap. So I’d apply your logic there before I applied it to MPs to be fair.

[super_realist]

Nurses pay is pretty rotten, but a lot of staff in the NHS get a pretty handsome salary and we shouldn't make the mistake of believing they all deserve more pay.
Personally I'd start Nurses and Teachers at least 5k more than they currently get.

[beninho]

I think all public sector workers are in line for a long pay freeze!

[dynamark]

Suggested to my daughter she might try NHS rather than her jobs(non jobs)in golf club and pub.NO answer yet.Getting into politics local is not difficult and then its just a matter of grabbing opportunity.I went to a property in Wembley last year where we had a scathing letter from a local councillor accusing us close on intended murder of the tenants sick daughter dangerous heating system etc etc.Daughter turned out to be fittest 16 year in London played rugby on the wing for England under 18 house was fine few minor issue and I reported back saying the councillor must have a small majority to do that kind of thing.The majority was 6 six and that is why she was acting in that way for her loyal local resident and trying to hang on to her job.
Everyone is a so called key worker in one or another way

[beninho]

2 of the mps we deal with are John Mcdonell and Boris Johnson. I will let you guess whose office fights more for the constituents.

[super_realist]

2 of the mps we deal with are John Mcdonell and Boris Johnson. I will let you guess whose office fights more for the constituents.

You have my sympathies on both counts. I'm surprised McDonnell has not suggested renationalising your tenants.

[McLaren]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

[super_realist]

Mac, I don't know why you can't understand this but all your Web link revealed was a headline with the rest of the article hidden behind the FT paywall. There was no actual words to accompany it, therefore no data, no context, no evidence or anything which allows anyone to make sense of the sensationalist headline.
In other words, useless.

[McLaren]

Not my fault you can't access FT. Don't be so stingy.

[Pal Joey]

I see pubs and clubs are re-opening here from tomorrow. Only 10 people are allowed in at one time with table service only for food and drinks. It will be interesting to see if long queues form outside of popular watering holes. I'll keep you posted.

[super_realist]

Not my fault you can't access FT. Don't be so stingy.

As if you pay for it Mac.

[westisbest]

I see pubs and clubs are re-opening here from tomorrow. Only 10 people are allowed in at one time with table service only for food and drinks. It will be interesting to see if long queues form outside of popular watering holes. I'll keep you posted.

That’s the way to do it to start with. Hope it goes well.

[dynamark]

Joey get me a lager please mate

[Pal Joey]

Shall do, dyna. Have to wait until 9am tomorrow... so about 16 hours or so.

On second thoughts I might wait about 24 hours to give the pipes a chance to have the amber flowing through them for a while. Also; I'll let a few others order from the grill first to kill off any dead grease or whatever has been lying idle there for the last couple of months. Food for thought, yeah?

[dynamark]

I can see us booking a time in the pub like a tee time.In one door say 7 till 8 out the front door and next batch can come in.

[Pal Joey]

Yeah, that's already happening here. They'll also have to up the security to snuff out any skirmishes which may develop when groups are told to "move on" when their time is up.

[George1507]

I can understand both could be good constituency MP's but given their records and terrible performances at the front end of politics it seems obvious why they hold or have held their front bench or shadow cabinet positions. Won't sit well with the likes of Mac, but most likely a box ticking exercise for inclusive purposes which I'm sure all parties do to some degree. Some MP's will be there on merit, some however completely hopeless.

I'm all for paying MPs a good salary because their jobs are responsible, and you need good people to make a difference. I'm all for paying Cabinet members a very good salary, because they have the country to run as well as their constituents.

However I do think that if you are an MP, then you should not undertake any other form of paid employment while you are so. Unearned income like shares or dividends - ok, but they must be declared. No other earned income at all though.

[super_realist]

If 82k isn't enough for you to be a constituency MP, then stick to being a lawyer, doctor or whatever. Mind you I can't see any job that would employ certain MP's and pay them that amount of money if they were to give it up.
Many would be lucky to get a third of MP salary in the real world.

[Soul Requiem]

It's a job rarely based on actual ability so for every hyper competent politician like an Yvette Cooper or Hilary Benn there's a Diane Abbott or Angela Rayner.

[navyblueshorts]

Unsurprisingly, my point has been twisted away from what it was. I think it looks bad, I only ever said looks bad. And I think that Mps shouldn't be allowed to act as consultants/ lobbyists. On this case its a tory case. Show me a similar labour case and I'll give an answer on that.

I still think it looks bad though.

Do people have no issue with MPs being paid lobbyists?

Agree w/ this. That said, what about paying them salaries commensurate w/ running a nation > 65m people? pay peanuts, get monkeys and all that. Decent wage == no excuse.

The majority of MP's aren't running the country though, they are simply representing their constituencies and will say virtually nothing in Parliament as back bench MP's and no make no  real influence. . 82k plus expenses, allowances, gold plated pension  as well as other benefits seems pretty good compensation for that.

If you had them being paid more then the tinpot MP's from the devolved parts of the country would also demand more.

Afraid I disagree. ~£82k for that alleged responsibility is pants, especially for MPs representing constituencies nowhere near London. Most of Parliament isn't conducted in the Commons. Still, we deserve what we get.

[super_realist]

It's a job rarely based on actual ability so for every hyper competent politician like an Yvette Cooper or Hilary Benn there's a Diane Abbott or Angela Rayner.

You could put a rosette on a dummy in many seats, which is why you get certain inexplicable majorities like Patel, Abbott, Lammy, Corbyn, Gavin Williamson, Sturdy etc.

[navyblueshorts]

Unsurprisingly, my point has been twisted away from what it was. I think it looks bad, I only ever said looks bad. And I think that Mps shouldn't be allowed to act as consultants/ lobbyists. On this case its a tory case. Show me a similar labour case and I'll give an answer on that.

I still think it looks bad though.

Do people have no issue with MPs being paid lobbyists?

Agree w/ this. That said, what about paying them salaries commensurate w/ running a nation > 65m people? pay peanuts, get monkeys and all that. Decent wage == no excuse.

I’d tend to go the other way Navy, I think respect for MPs is at an all time low and that’s saying something after the 90’s. I’d say they need to win back respect over a looooong period of time before they have any significant re-evaluation of their role. There also needs to be more scrutiny of their expenses....still!! As Super said they get a gilt edged pension and their careers (if they’re not coffin dodgers when they get booted out) won’t exactly be barren of offers if they want to work AFTER serving.
At the end of the day they will know what the salary is before they stand so it’s their choice. If this crisis has taught us anything it’s taught us that we really should have a MASSIVE re-evaluation of what constitutes valuable roles in society and start to realign wages to reflect value. Personally I think medical staff and nurses in particular deserve a LOT more than a Thursday night clap. So I’d apply your logic there before I applied it to MPs to be fair.

And so we get what we deserve and yet we moan about conflicts of interest, consultancies etc. Right....

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

[navyblueshorts]

I can understand both could be good constituency MP's but given their records and terrible performances at the front end of politics it seems obvious why they hold or have held their front bench or shadow cabinet positions. Won't sit well with the likes of Mac, but most likely a box ticking exercise for inclusive purposes which I'm sure all parties do to some degree. Some MP's will be there on merit, some however completely hopeless.

I'm all for paying MPs a good salary because their jobs are responsible, and you need good people to make a difference. I'm all for paying Cabinet members a very good salary, because they have the country to run as well as their constituents.

However I do think that if you are an MP, then you should not undertake any other form of paid employment while you are so. Unearned income like shares or dividends - ok, but they must be declared. No other earned income at all though.

[super_realist]

Unsurprisingly, my point has been twisted away from what it was. I think it looks bad, I only ever said looks bad. And I think that Mps shouldn't be allowed to act as consultants/ lobbyists. On this case its a tory case. Show me a similar labour case and I'll give an answer on that.

I still think it looks bad though.

Do people have no issue with MPs being paid lobbyists?

Agree w/ this. That said, what about paying them salaries commensurate w/ running a nation > 65m people? pay peanuts, get monkeys and all that. Decent wage == no excuse.

The majority of MP's aren't running the country though, they are simply representing their constituencies and will say virtually nothing in Parliament as back bench MP's and no make no  real influence. . 82k plus expenses, allowances, gold plated pension  as well as other benefits seems pretty good compensation for that.

If you had them being paid more then the tinpot MP's from the devolved parts of the country would also demand more.

Afraid I disagree. ~£82k for that alleged responsibility is pants, especially for MPs representing constituencies nowhere near London. Most of Parliament isn't conducted in the Commons. Still, we deserve what we get.

A lot of MP's aren't doing a great deal though. Many are not much more than glorified councillors and have pretty much zero input to the HOP.
Many of the SNP MP's simply exist to be cantankerous it would seem.
82k is plenty for a job where no actual skill or qualification is required, also proven by the fact many seats are so safe it wouldn't matter who you put up. Anyone can be elected an MP as demonstrated by plenty of examples and paying them more doesn't mean you'd get better qualified people or people who would work harder.
The majority of constituents have absolutely no contact with their MP's and no need to ever call upon them and other than being a representative of a party their existence is largely irrelevant other than for the purpose of a general election.

[Soul Requiem]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

Any discussions around deaths at the moment are premature, you have to consider age and long term health issues. What happens for instance if in 3/4 months the death rate drops massively below average which it could well do, how do we use that information?

[JAS]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

Any discussions around deaths at the moment are premature, you have to consider age and long term health issues. What happens for instance if in 3/4 months the death rate drops massively below average which it could well do, how do we use that information?

I kind of get the cold logic of the point you're trying to make here but I suspect the friends and families of 33000+ would quite emotively disagree. I do think you are correct though that if a significant amount of elderly and infirm (underlying health conditions where the prognosis isnt good) are effectively "checking out" a few months early (i.e. now) then they will not be there to be counted later when they would normally be expected to go.

Bottom line though, the amount of deaths caused by or related to this pandemic is shocking and we cannot dress it up any way other than our response, however well intentioned in places has been shocking. EVERY country has made mistakes sure, but the way our lot are obfuscating some of their (admittedly easy to see with hindsight) errors of judgement is even more shocking.

I'd go as far as to say they won't want an enquiry into the whole debacle and if they are forced into it they'll lie through through their teeth....A bit like Blair and Chilcott really!!

[Soul Requiem]

I don't disagree with the basic premise of your point there JAS but it does highlight why there is such a divide in opinion on this; I tend to look at things from a more logical point of view whereas you and Ben will look at things more emotively, I don't think either is wrong but does go someway to explaining things.

[super_realist]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

Any discussions around deaths at the moment are premature, you have to consider age and long term health issues. What happens for instance if in 3/4 months the death rate drops massively below average which it could well do, how do we use that information?

I kind of get the cold logic of the point you're trying to make here but I suspect the friends and families of 33000+ would quite emotively disagree. I do think you are correct though that if a significant amount of elderly and infirm (underlying health conditions where the prognosis isnt good) are effectively "checking out" a few months early (i.e. now) then they will not be there to be counted later when they would normally be expected to go.

Bottom line though, the amount of deaths caused by or related to this pandemic is shocking and we cannot dress it up any way other than our response, however well intentioned in places has been shocking. EVERY country has made mistakes sure, but the way our lot are obfuscating some of their (admittedly easy to see with hindsight) errors of judgement is even more shocking.

I'd go as far as to say they won't want an enquiry into the whole debacle and if they are forced into it they'll lie through through their teeth....A bit like Blair and Chilcott really!!

If the number of deaths was only down to the speed of response then death rates would be steady and similar in every region of the UK, but it isn't, so there's clearly more to it than that.
I don't doubt it plays a part but there are some glaringly obvious reasons as to why the UK or any other country has the rates they do.

[Sponsored content]