Boris got a rousing welcome from Mancunians.

And the faithful were clearly agog to hear what drivel they were being fed.


At some fringe meeting, Bojo was talking about a climate change summit he’s holding in Glasgow, if you please, where he wants there to be a big union flag at the back of the stage. And…

Well, I suspect she doesn’t want to be anywhere near your flag. But you do realise that being stupid enough to mention all that, does mean that Glasgow, very much a YES city will be teaming with Saltires, inside and outside of your summit. (Incidentally, does your boss… you know, your old bro with the orange skin… know that you are into climate change stuff???)

And in the meantime, they carried on sleeping.


The “scandal” of Boris’s wandering hands won’t go away. I’m not one to comment on whether it is right to bring something like this up after years, or whether they should have dealt with it at the time.  He was their boss. It’s not always easy to deal with your boss in that kind of situation and unless you know all the circumstances it is best to stay out of it. But not dear old Tobe. He seems to have just gone and made it worse.

tory con1

Ho hum… And then there is the ever charmless Hopkins person:


Has anyone ever come across a more stupid or repugnant character than Hopkins?

Ooops, maybe I spoke too soon.

I dunno. Can anyone point me in the direction of something sensible said by someone…anyone… at the Tory Conference?

I wonder if this is what passes for sense in today’s England.



  1. Boris’s proposals for the Glasgow event will be a wonderful advertisement for the UK in front of TV cameras from across the world. Hope Nicola goes along, to be refused entry in front of the watching world and, of course, with a sea of saltires behind her. I’ll be there – even if it clashes with the fitba.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I don’t understand how he can be so daft.

      Inside we can’t really stop what he does with his flag, but outside, we can show the posh boy that this is Glasgow and in Glasgow we fly the Saltire. The press outside will see a lot of Saltires.

      If he hadn’t mentioned anything, who would have bothered? Now almost undoubtedly, thousands will be there.

      Oh and, I suspect that no one tells Nicola where she can go in her own city.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Anent the Katie Hopkins quote, we do actually have a pussy as Prime Minister, although most of use the shorter four letter synonym beginning with c.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. LOL. Still, now little Boris has found they key to the orchard that has the magic money tree and he’s shaking it in a bold and manly fashion, there will be halls like that springing up all over the land, paid for by good solid fair decent English money! Money with standards!



  3. Just listened to loathesom being interviewed.
    £200m for doris’ bus collection no less.
    The uk is the world leader in Fusion, by 2040 we will be producing LIMITLESS energy from a fusion reactor using seawater as the source with NO pollution. The UKAEA were working on a fusion reactor in the late 60’s, still no sign of it producing sustained output for any significant time.
    On the question of the doris’ handling of a lady’s thigh, ‘If the pm says he didn’t do it, I believe him’, so our Alex is to appear in court as he’s not believed by a tory. One man’s sexual assault is another females LIES.
    The chancellor is raising the living wage to £10.50 an hour, this will allow our wheelers and dealers to move forward into the riches of the brexit blue skies. Oh by the way it’s not until after 2025, so don’t worry that inflation will have reduced it’s buying power by then.
    Big brave harry hewitt walked through a mine field that his mother walked through 10 years ago, they’ve done well with clearing the mines then.
    This is the country we live in with a corrupt press, lies by omission.
    Is this the best talent the tories can put up as ministers or do they just think we’re totally stupid?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I loved that Harry did that with a determined look on his face as if there was a fair chance that he was going to be blown up at any second.

      And there will be those who believe that …



  4. This ticks me off. So sorry, a few words of gratuitous transatlantic pontification.

    Now let me get this straight. After all the Sturm und Drang about prorogation…….after breathlessly anticipated court decisions, after Prime Minister taking an early morning flight back to back to Westminster from New York and being sped through the streets of London to take charge of parliament……..after all the hand wringing and rending of garments about the necessity of parliament being in session to deal with Brexit…….after breathless media reports that might be more appropriate for the second coming of Christ…….After ALL that………the politicians are adjourning to hold party conferences??? Seriously????

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding British politics. Or maybe I should just should quit taking politics so seriously and realize that it’s all just a big show to confuse and rile up the common rubes who vote for these clowns. After all, in the USA, the Democrats and the Republicans are now putting on a big impeachment show, the outcome of which they tell us will determine nothing less than the fate of the great American republic. And as soon as impeachment proceedings were announced last week, Congress went on a two week summer break. Seriously!!!!

    At least the American political parties are unofficial things (constitutionally speaking) with relatively little administrative structure and no official members OR office holders in the British sense. However, when they do spring into some sort existence at four year intervals to elect a president, the American parties put on big media shows called nominating conventions. These American party “Conventions” were once relevant to the process of governing. No more! Now they are simply big garish media shows to pretend to be nominating a candidate who was actually chosen by primary elections, party caucuses, or smaller party conventions in the states over the previous 6 months. So the Conventions are media shows for the purpose of riling up the voters…….and which the parties agree are never scheduled at the same time, which would spoil the free TV coverage. Do politicians of ALL parties take us for fools? YES, they really do!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Normally, parliament does close down for the party conferences. But this year, becasue of the Supreme Court ruling, they did not. So parliament is still sitting. It’s just that some of their number are not in attendance. And, let’s be honest, quite a lot of them spend little time there anyway.

      Ministers only go to parliament to speak or answer questions on their subject or support each other, or for votes (divisions). A lot of Scots, Irish and Welsh MPs are not required for English only business and the lazier back-benchers often prefer the bar to the chamber.

      The party conferences are media hype things here too. Each party used to get a boost after the conference, but frankly, I can’t see them getting much of a boost this year.

      Labour’s promises seemed highly unlikely. The Tories’ are utterly laughable, and no one really remembers what the Liberal Democrats promised, becasue Liberal Democrat promises are a bit like piecrusts. So easily broken.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Tris…..I’m happy that after all that effort to keep parliament in session, that it really IS still in session. 😉 The last time I was in Washington and took a tour of the Capitol, I actually entered the visitor galleries, and realized that even though both Houses were in session, the chambers were mostly empty. The members are off doing other things, and mostly only show up for votes. It was more interesting to visit the old (now unused) Senate Chamber of 1810-1859 and see where the senatorial giants like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster actually met and debated the Kansas-Nebraska act on the eve of Civil War. These days, actual debates on the floors of the House and Senate chambers are very rare.

        When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was confronted with questions about the optics of the House going into recess as soon as she opened impeachment proceedings, she said that the members would be back in their states and districts gauging the opinions of their constituents on the impeachment question. Yea RIGHT!!! They really do take us for fools……BOTH parties! 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m sure Munguinites have heard me say this before, but I’ll say it again: Scotland needs its independence, but England needs a bloody revolution. Preferably non-sanguinary, but the more extremist politicians stir up public anger, the more likely violence becomes.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Ed……as I’ve often said, I am opposed to all forms of violence (THESE days.) But we Americans in 1776 did learn something about the British. They respond to guns and bullets much more readily than they respond to petitions and sweet reason.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Well, I really hope it doesn’t come to violence… of course it has in small ways already, but I meant on a large scale. But I fear that they have stoked people up, and Farage was talking about taking the knife to people (like he’d ever be sober enough to do that). Violence may come. Hopefully not here.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I sometimes point out to my Canadian friends that if they had been as warlike as their friends to the south, they could be today an actual democratic republic, instead of a monarchy spouting sentimental BS about the “Queen of Canada.”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Is she popular there?

          Most of the folk I know from Canada are Québecois, and they would be happy to see the back of her, but I’ve no idea how it is in English-speaking Canada.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I really don’t know how popular she is in English Canada. My impression is that when Americans accuse the Canadians of being spineless cowards for not having had a revolution and kicking out the British, they often make a show of saying how much they love the Queen. My view is that it’s just a way of diverting attention from what wusses they are. 😉

            Nevertheless, loving the monarchy is not quite as silly as having politicians who make their speeches in two languages……translating paragraph by paragraph in real time. That is seriously crazy behavior.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. To be fair, Danny, although in big cities most people speak English, in some smaller places in Québec people still only speak French… and not just older folk. I know a guy who lived up in the wilds who only started learning English when he moved to Montréal for university.

              Even bilinguals can get angered by the assumption that everything can be done in English.

              French speakers are fiercely proud of their language. In so many places English is taking over. In a bilingual country I can understand languages being given equal prominence.

              I do know that the queen speaks fluent French, although heavily accented.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. Yes – the only other high heid yin I’ve come across in my life whose accent was at least equally cringeworthy was Ted Heath. Sets me old linguistic teeth on edge, so it does, to hear a language massacred like that.

                Liked by 2 people

                1. LOL. It’s almost as though toffs think that it is the correct thing to do to speak a foreign language without any effort at all to get either a rough approximation of the accent or any of the rhythm.

                  On the other hand, Thatcher, who spoke not a word of French, learned a speech in that language (I never heard any of it so I can’t judge). That was a pretty brave thing to do.

                  Willie Windsor tried a tiny bit of French when he was in Canada and then, because it was embarrassingly bad, made a joke of the fact that he hadn’t bothered much with it at Eton.

                  Tactful not.

                  Liked by 1 person

                2. As an afterthought, it is fair to say that French (or any language) spoken like that is difficult for natives to understand.

                  Sink af ze typique frenchman qui speak avec un accent so strong in ze eeengeesh…

                  Apologies for the earlier errors in this. Done in a rush.

                  Liked by 1 person

                3. Ed…..I think the Queen said a few words in French at the opening of the Chunnel. I heard somewhere that the female British aristocracy were mostly educated in flower arrangement and a few words of French. It may have been Lord Clarke in “Civilisation,” who described the pre-WWI British aristocracy as being “dumb as swans.”


              2. Tris, Ed…..It’s nice to accommodate the French speakers, and whatever you can say about Canadians they are NICE. They never want to offend anybody — a trait with which their southern neighbors have never much been burdened. 😉
                I love these famous Canadian protest signs:

                BUT there’s an oratorical price for that. I looked for an article about how Canadian political oratory never ever seems to get……GOING. You hear a paragraph, then you play with your smart phone for a while as you wait for the next understandable paragraph.

                I didn’t find that article, but I found a couple about Canadian political correctness and a change in the official English language version of “O Canada”, which apparently says somewhat different things in English than it does in French.



                Liked by 1 person

                  1. I remember Benn’s speech. I was less than impressed with it. I also can’t remember a single time when a British politicians has moved me.

                    Had I been alive in the days of Winston, maybe it would have worked for me. It’s hard to say. But I don’t remember anything ever said by any of them that got me going.

                    I do remember listening to Jacques Chirac refusing to be drawn with Blair into the Iraq war. I was in France at the time. His speech was the best sense I’d heard on the subject, and whatever else you could say about his, he spoke the most beautiful and correct French ever…well, to my unreliable ears anyway!

                    But I’m hard to please. I rarely get greatly moved by politicians. Even ones I agree with.

                    When it comes to Johnson or Trump, both seem to find it almost impossible to put together a whole sentence that makes any kind of sense.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Tris……Interesting! I think I read that there were no recordings made of the proceedings in Commons during WWII. So Churchill recorded his famous war speeches on disks immediately afterwards.
                      Trumpy is hampered by having the vocabulary of a six year old. That wouldn’t be too much of a problem since presidential speeches are written by speechwriters. But his speechwriters don’t seem to be very good at it either. And then there’s the fact that he also has the (teleprompter) READING skills of a six year old.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    2. He also seems to read them like he doesn’t understand them. It’s just words to him.

                      Have to say though, that I imagine that there are 6 year olds all over America who won’t be best pleased to be compared with Trump!

                      Liked by 2 people

                  2. I recently heard Trump talking about emoluments, as in the emoluments clause which says in black and white that US presidents are not allowed to take them. He said words to the effect that no one had ever heard of emoluments, which, translating from the Trumpian, means that he himself had spent over 70 years of his life not knowing the word. This was not long ago, within the last month, I think.

                    Yet again, the man’s limited vocabulary, impoverished understanding and sheer stupidity were stunning. I mean – taking bribes, soliciting gifts, making profits for his business from the taxpayer and generally profiting from his office are actually illegal? Who knew?

                    Liked by 3 people

                    1. Ed…..Interesting topic!

                      I think that Trumpy considers the constitution to be no more than a list of suggestions. He’s surely never read it of course. 😉

                      In fairness, I’d have to say that he was probably far from the only American who didn’t know what that word means. (Much less what it may have meant to the founders in the eighteenth century.) It was hiding down in the “Title of Nobility” clause. Who knew? 😉


                      The clause has a controversial element by being a “negative clause” which prohibits a power that Congress wasn’t given in the first place. This is the sort of controversy that faced the Bill of Rights. What was the point of denying Congress the power to make a law establishing a state religion for example, when Congress only has the enumerated powers it is explicitly granted by the sovereign states? In other words, does that imply that Congress may have powers that are not enumerated AND that are not explicitly denied?

                      Writing a constitution is a tricky undertaking. James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” at first felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary; but his friend and fellow Virginian Tom Jefferson, who was in France when the constitution was written, convinced him otherwise.


                      This issue was covered in an episode of “The West Wing.” An arrogant judge was being interviewed by the President for a seat on the US Supreme Court.

                      Judge: “I find this sort of questioning very rude”
                      White House lawyer: “Well then you’re really going to enjoy meeting the US Senate”

                      Liked by 2 people

                    2. Interesting topic indeed. In my (unsuccessful) suggestions for the new (2010) Kenyan Constitution (, some years ago now, I raised all the usual objections you might expect to having the preamble to it begin “We, the people of Kenya – Acknowledging the supremacy of the Almighty God of all creation…” and end with the amen “GOD BLESS KENYA”. It is mitigated a bit, however, by the inclusion in the preamble of “PROUD of our ethnic, cultural and religious diversity”. Happily, it goes on to say in its article 8, entitled “State and Religion”, that “There shall be no State religion.” It goes on to talk about freedom of religion, among other things, in article 32 in the section entitled “Bill of Rights”.

                      The German Grundgesetz covers freedom of religion in its article 136 of those extracted from the Weimar Constitution of 1919, on religion and religious societies. The article (and section) begins: “There shall be no State church”.

                      So – the equivalents of the “negative clause” in the US first amendment which prohibits Congress from making any law to establish a State religion are worded as a blanket prohibition which prevents not just the legislature but the executive from trying to impose a religion, or anyone else as well – including, in Germany’s case, the Länder – and the freedom of religion and conscience clauses prevent organisations of any kind, or individuals, from imposing religion on anyone else.

                      In my view, the First Amendment overcomplicates the matter. I find it supremely annoying that the Usual Suspects still quack on about the US being founded as a Christian nation, especially given that they are the ones who most consistently go on and on about Muslims plotting to impose Sharia and how awful those places are, like Saudi Arabia, which impose Islam on people. The fact that the Saudis impose not only Islam but a particular flavour of Islam is not something that is on their radar, naturally enough, nor is its contribution to the horrible, genocidal war in Yemen. Here’s a paper on that, entitled “Yemen at War: The New Shia-Sunni Frontline That Never Was”:

                      Liked by 1 person

                1. Interesting, Danny.

                  I’m not a huge believer in changing these anthems to suit prevailing moods. Most countries have anthems that talk about how they are greater than anyone else, or how they vanquish enemies. (As is pointed out in the article the French anthem is horrifically bloodthirsty). The Scottish anthem talks about sending Proud Edward’s army home “tae think again” The German anthem talked about Germany over all. ‘Deutschland, Deutschland über alles’ was only dropped at reunification in 1990.

                  The English anthem is just a nonsense of course babbling on about Liz and god saving her… presumably from lying bastards of prime ministers! (I’m not sure, I don’t know the lyric. I’ve never sung it and I never shall

                  Gender specifics are easier in English, As again, the article points out, gender is often indicated grammatically in French. Canada (Le Canada) itself is masculine, while France (La France) is feminine. It has nothing to do with actual sexual gender, but grammatical gender. But you really can’t go around calling Canada “she”! It makes nonsense of the grammar.

                  I see Conrad Black is still writing. He used to own the largely English Daily Telegraph. Out and out Tory, it was, none the less, a decent paper with superb foreign news coverage… and biased editorial comment.

                  When Lord Black left us for the inside of an American (I think) prison, the paper was sold on to the Barclay Brothers who have turned it into a broadsheet comic with coverage more suited to their own level of intelligence. All we need is breasts on page three and it will be The Sun on bigger paper.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. OMG Tris……The name didn’t mean anything to me, although it sounded slightly familiar. I do remember the Lordship guy who was in an American prison.
                    Wiki says:
                    “Upon his release from prison, Black was deported to Canada. According to Black’s lawyers, Black has been barred from entering the United States for 30 years.”
                    “In 2018, he wrote a glowing book about President Donald Trump. On May 15, 2019, he was granted a full pardon by Trump.”
                    Geeeze…..some guys will do anything for a presidential pardon. 😉

                    I like national anthems that have a genuine historical origin. Sometimes “The Star Spangled Banner” is derided as being too militaristic (and also hard to sing if you’re not an opera singer.) But it was written in the midst of a battle with the British. So it’s proper that it glorifies military victory. It’s also cool that someone kept the flag that flew that night during the battle, and you can go see it at the Smithsonian in Washington.

                    Liked by 2 people

                    1. Yep, that’s his nobleness.

                      Maybe I should start writing something nice about Liz or Charlie, lest I should require a pardon.

                      Let me see. The queen is a nice old woman and her son is a nice old man …erm… think that will do?

                      Yep, I don’t think that they should go around changing anthems for nothing in particular. There are probably exceptions to that though.

                      I’m not sure if anyone actually learns all the words to those things. As I say I never have.

                      It is cool that they kept the flag that flew that night, though. Bye bye brits!

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. Tris…..I’m not sure that “The queen is a nice old Woman” would earn you a pardon. But maybe a shorter prison sentence. 😉

                      I’ve heard that years ago, there were proposals to change the American anthem from a military theme to something religious and/or sentimental. “God Bless America” and “America the Beautiful” (O Beautiful for Spacious Skies) were proposed. But the old 1814 song about the flag and the battle with the Brits seems secure. What would the Smithsonian do with that big old 15-stripe flag (with the missing star) otherwise?

                      Liked by 1 person

  6. Loved the report of an Eddy Mair phone in.
    The one where the leaver says he’s fed up with the delay.
    Then he says ‘If the crash out doesn’t happen on 31st October he’s going to do a Baroness nay money and leave the uk.
    Eddy asks ‘Where will you go?’
    Leaver says ‘ Somewhere in Europe’
    You’d be laughed out the joke emporium trying to get that on the script for the panto.
    Ebc says their presenter was innocent about calling trump a racist, does that mean the EBC’s calling trump racist?
    No that wouldn’t be the balanced position. Noted on the weekend that the doris groping report was second place to an SNP baaaad report, a half size input but Alex’s was on the headline for many days.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. My experience of such things tells me that protocol will be observed, and that countries’ diplomatic corps are almost always better informed and significantly more rational than their politicians. Not to put too fine a point of it, Boris – in the unlikely and unwelcome event that he is still Prime Minister, or has declared himself England’s Duce or Führer – will fool nobody, and will be instantly seen for exactly the liar, the charlatan, and the over-entitled, arrogant, elitist and authoritarian fool that he is.

      Our First Minister will shine all the brighter in contrast: her sincerity, intelligence and honesty will go down very well, as will her and her Government’s commitment to not just talking about climate change, but doing something about it. We are very lucky to have a Head of Government here in Scotland who is both well informed and thoroughly rational – and a democrat.

      Not that I’m at all biased, of course. Oh no.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. That Tory party conference – like the one at the Armadillo with May, or the one where she came in ostensibly dancing to a disco beat – must be gawd-awful affairs. I’ve seen more enthusiasm at funerals.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Point.

        Trust you are recovering.

        I am a bit embarrassed that I didn’t at least ask after your health first.


        Not all of your friends have social skills.

        Well, not me at least.


        Liked by 2 people

  7. What I’ve linked to below is a pro-brexit site, but the kind of brexit they envisioned was what was once called a soft brexit. It’s not a vision I share. I’d like to stay in the EU . However the site is interesting. It’s regular daily commentary on what’s going on is pretty accurate. It’s highly critical of the hard brexit position and of PM Johnson’s position in particular. This latest offering from them tries to make some sense of what Boris has been saying, what the UK Press have been reporting and the rumours and speculation that have been circulating over the week-end. Towards the end of the article they spell out what is believed to the final take it or leave position of Johnson/Cummings .
    It’s a quite bizarre proposal. Anyway, this is how the article ends…

    “What is puzzling, though, is that this proposal is so far distant from anything the EU, or Member States such as Ireland, would be prepared to accept, that there can’t be any serious expectation of this closing the deal. On the face of it, Johnson needs that deal in order to circumvent the Benn Act. But this plan seems designed to fail.”

    To be clear, they are saying that the Johnson/Cummings proposal is quite knowingly and deliberately designed to fail and be rejected in order to achieve the hard-brexit crash-out on the 31st.

    As I understand what the proposal is to be is to have not just one border between the north & south in Ireland but a second border down the middle of the Irish Sea and for the matter to be resolved in a few years time by the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont. It’s quite the most bonkers idea to date.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m inclined to agree with that.

      For something that was supposed to be kept secret we have all known about ot for some time.

      What I suspect they want is a way to say, well, we bent over backwards to do what we could, but Johnnie Foreigner kicked the sand in our faces. There’s no point any more we will have to have a no deal Brexit and all these people who have bet on that will just have to make a fortune.



  8. I’m so far convinced that the border will be at Holyhead, Liverpool and Stranraer as there are facilities there to do the physical checks required. A reworking of the maybot’s agreement but remember that the TRADE deals are still to be completed and the Canadian TRADE deal took years to finalise
    The idea that everything on the Isle of Ireland crossing the border is all commercial traffic is so far from the actuality to be incompetent. The farmers trade with each other across the border just like on this big island, sheep and cattle are transported between breeders and finishers.
    My friend Gerry has said from the start, the plan is to crash out, not pay the divorce money and try to run on WTO rules.
    We can’t be paying lothesom very well she wore that leather jacket to last year’s conference.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree with Gerry.

      WTO will demand a hard border with Ireland though. Quotas and tariffs and all… If you have an end to a jurisdiction, you have a border.

      Jaiket didn’t suit her then and it’s no better now.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. My niece has been bothered with insomnia lately. I should have suggested she attend the Tory conference where she could have spent a few blissful days in dreamland.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. As long as she kept away from the NO SURRENDER louts or indeed that bloke that was ejected… the same one that attacked the climate change lady and May let him off.

      He’s clearly a mental thug!


      1. omg was that that the same guy – total madman. Mind you we have Union Jack wanting a Union holiday with union flags instead of those “left wing ones (holidays)”

        Jack might not be violent in public but another one aff es heid.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I just can’t get my head around anyone being so daft as to think that stuffing their ghastly union down our throats till we choke is going to make it dear to us.


    1. jake,

      Before we go off on one.

      Do we know it is Pitlochry, independently verified? Assuming that to be the case do we have information that suggests that this is not an everyday movement of UK military equipment? And whether the equipment is heading South rather than North?

      It looks like a BoJo photo opportunity to me.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.