Could also throw in the impact of global warming on agriculture?

No it isn't.

I'd say Blair didn't end in failure. Stayed on a little too long and didn't get to leave precisely on his terms but left the job to a standing ovation.

This is incredibly pathetic on Dershowitz's part, but even more pathetic is the WSJ editors saying "yes, this needs to be published."

Can confirm

He's an adorable duck who drinks milkshakes.

Fun fact - for a while in the 2010s Nokia 3210s were a prized commodity in Russia for security minded types.

Possibly - but also the fact that Labour doesn't have a consensus successor and doesn't want to fight it out.

There're a lot of real constraints that this or any government would be operating under, but I think you're fundamentally correct that the approach should have been "take decisions in year one that make things generally better by year four or five". Instead there's a neurosis about the manifesto.

As we're discussing the pandemic - we're very lucky as a species that Avengers: Endgame came out in 2019 because if it had been scheduled for summer 2020 Disney and an army of nerds would have caused the death of millions.

Ireland's 2011 crisis was funnier. The government came within a hair's breadth of collapsing because of an unconstitutional shortage of ministers more or less by accident.

Another way to put it is that this is a very survivable, even only slightly more than trivial, scandal if Starmer was delivering competent governance, but he isn't so it's become an all consuming mess.

Yeah those are still scams

You misspelled "should".

So the "lie" in this case is "I'm pretty sure he lied about something but I definitely can't pin it it down or articulate what it was."

That's the whole ball game here - they're trying to argue "it would be incredibly inappropriate to know what the vetting found because the vettee needs to be able to feel they can speak with candour" when the issue is did they know the simple pass/fail and why not if so?

If their constituents want to hear them pull a pointless stunt in parliament then their constituents are utter morons.

What has he lied about, specifically, and what evidence do you have of that? And his career is literally imploding.

What they need is a fleet of Yak-52s and a few Ukrainians with AKs

It doesn't. A) it allows you to have things like parliamentary privilege B) presumption of good faith is important if you want to have actually functioning debate C) if someone does lie and it can be proved they did then they get spanked.

And accomplished the square root of fuck all.

Sultana finally doing a bit of service in that everyone lining up to declare how impressed they are by this stunt is an obvious moron whose opinion should be ignored.

Yes, because Sultana pulled her idiot stunt AFTER Anderson pulled his.

Yes, it would have

You mean the reactions to the second person doing it in a debate sheet someone has already been kicked out for it? Gosh I wonder why the reaction might be different...

I can assure you the alternatives to parliamentary democracy are pretty bad.

He expelled him too

There's good reasons MPs can't call other MPs liars, Sultana knows them, and it's ridiculous to call Hoyle corrupt for enforcing them

If there were any viable alternative, he'd be gone.

If Rayner hadn't failed to declare. But she did.

If the members didn't hate Streeting. But they do.

If Burnham were an MP. But he isn't.

Miliband? Cooper? Powell??!??

/1