+100% ! Much of the comment on here and in the British press has woefully misinterpreted and misunderstood the mood in both Spain generally and Catalonia particularly.
+100% ! Much of the comment on here and in the British press has woefully misinterpreted and misunderstood the mood in both Spain generally and Catalonia particularly.
Listening to Ruth Davidson on Marr she leaves plenty of wiggle room to stand as leader
And she gives a better interview than anyone else in the party. She is positive, amusing, engaging and informative. Some of the cabinet can tick some of those boxes but none of them can tick them all.
I agree with her that she has an important job in Scotland but it may be that the needs of the country override that.
And what are Ruth's political ideas ? Apart from:
1) No to Scottish independence 2) Keeping WFA in Scotland
She would need a lot more than that to be in government.
And she would also need to be able to make hard and unpopular decisions - judging from (2) above she lacks that ability.
Don't forget building five new towns with the magic money tree then punting the houses off. That's a real winner.
Did Ruth say where these five new towns were to be relocated ?
Och, I misremembered, it's actually eight. No, practical details were a bit thin on the ground. Of course this is just in Scotland, presumably it would x10 when Ruth rides into Downing St on her white steed (or any other farm animal that happens to be available).
Listening to Ruth Davidson on Marr she leaves plenty of wiggle room to stand as leader
And she gives a better interview than anyone else in the party. She is positive, amusing, engaging and informative. Some of the cabinet can tick some of those boxes but none of them can tick them all.
I agree with her that she has an important job in Scotland but it may be that the needs of the country override that.
And what are Ruth's political ideas ? Apart from:
1) No to Scottish independence 2) Keeping WFA in Scotland
She would need a lot more than that to be in government.
And she would also need to be able to make hard and unpopular decisions - judging from (2) above she lacks that ability.
Don't forget building five new towns with the magic money tree then punting the houses off. That's a real winner.
Thanks.
Did Ruth say where these five new towns were to be located ?
Bet none of them will be in a constituency of a newly elected Scottish Tory MP....
Dear me - trying to type on an Amazon Fire is so fiddly.
How do young people manage to do this all day ?
Is this another sign that I'm getting old ?
It must be - I have an old Fire HD which is now a bit sluggish but the keyboard was always excellent. either was they are excellent value for money for all but the Apple snobs who get orgasmic at having their wallets lifted every few months!
+100% ! Much of the comment on here and in the British press has woefully misinterpreted and misunderstood the mood in both Spain generally and Catalonia particularly.
Been following this story from other sources, definitely not as clear cut as many in the UK media wish it to appear. Most people here are hearing about the break up of the EU, most in Spain (and in the EU) understand more of the nuances of what is going on - and it is a mess, on both sides.
Wee Ruth could not be PM from outside the Commons, but is there any reason she could not be in another cabinet role, such as Foreign Secretary or Brexit Secretary?
An interesting question. I think there's probably an unspoken principle that a Cabinet post should be at the least held by someone in Parliament, and to maintain a separation between the devolved assemblies and Westminster (I think it is still allowed, but is anyone currently a member of both a devolved assembly and Westminster? I know the Northern Irish MPs often were, but I think that is no longer the case?)
+100% ! Much of the comment on here and in the British press has woefully misinterpreted and misunderstood the mood in both Spain generally and Catalonia particularly.
As I recall the complexity of the situation, the divisions in Catalonia, and the escalation from both sides has been at the forefront both here and elsewhere. Certainly the police action on the referendum day provoked a lot of strong views that, regardless of who was most to blame for escalation that action was wrong, but it is one of the few subjects on here which has been greeted with any level of nuance, in general.
Listening to Ruth Davidson on Marr she leaves plenty of wiggle room to stand as leader
And she gives a better interview than anyone else in the party. She is positive, amusing, engaging and informative. Some of the cabinet can tick some of those boxes but none of them can tick them all.
I agree with her that she has an important job in Scotland but it may be that the needs of the country override that.
And what are Ruth's political ideas ? Apart from:
1) No to Scottish independence 2) Keeping WFA in Scotland
She would need a lot more than that to be in government.
And she would also need to be able to make hard and unpopular decisions - judging from (2) above she lacks that ability.
Don't forget building five new towns with the magic money tree then punting the houses off. That's a real winner.
Did Ruth say where these five new towns were to be relocated ?
Och, I misremembered, it's actually eight. No, practical details were a bit thin on the ground. Of course this is just in Scotland, presumably it would x10 when Ruth rides into Downing St on her white steed (or any other farm animal that happens to be available).
Anyway, I have a two manual organ to inflate. Can't manage a proper eight foot horn this morning as it needs a bit of a tune, but I'm hoping to achieve some kind of climax by using the octave couplers.
I am overseeing somebody fifty miles away who is attempting to repair and rerun an overnight failure whilst attempting to contact the person who wrote the f*****g thing to see if we can leave it until tomorrow to fix. Which means for the "n"th frakking Sunday I am going to be nailed to this PC. I am insanely jealous.
Wee Ruth could not be PM from outside the Commons, but is there any reason she could not be in another cabinet role, such as Foreign Secretary or Brexit Secretary?
An interesting question. I think there's probably an unspoken principle that a Cabinet post should be at the least held by someone in Parliament, and to maintain a separation between the devolved assemblies and Westminster (I think it is still allowed, but is anyone currently a member of both a devolved assembly and Westminster? I know the Northern Irish MPs often were, but I think that is no longer the case?)
There was a convention in the transition period when the devolved assemblies were being set up, indeed, Alex Salmond himself was one of the many beneficiaries, I think on 2 occasions. But, the convention was updated to only to be a representative in one or the other. Recently, we have had several MSP's also being members of local councils so not a pretty hard and fast rule.
But with Davidson, she could go into the Lords and then be a member of the cabinet, but until she had resigned her title, she couldn't become PM in a modern parliament. Imagine the hoo hah if she stood at the bar of the HoC answering questions at PMQ's. While too many MP's on all sides of the house would object to her sitting on the Government front bench and standing at the Despatch Box if she wasn't an elected MP.
remainers are pining for leadership from two blokes who were outwitted by a bus
I execrate George Osborne as the progenitor of "Help-To-Buy", the single stupidest policy that came out of the Cameron government (if you don't count Brexit), and he should be impaled on a stick and beaten by the mob. I cannot for the life of me understand TSE's infatuation with him.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Listening to Ruth Davidson on Marr she leaves plenty of wiggle room to stand as leader
And she gives a better interview than anyone else in the party. She is positive, amusing, engaging and informative. Some of the cabinet can tick some of those boxes but none of them can tick them all.
I agree with her that she has an important job in Scotland but it may be that the needs of the country override that.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time. Scotland's Boris without the brains.
You seem a touch obsessed with the poor lady, malcolm. You do know you've no chance there ?
Even the thought of that has spoiled my day. I amazed ( even though it is normal here) that idiots on here think she could be in charge of anything. A self aggrandising policy free windbag is about the best you could say about her , even for a supposed Tory she takes the biscuit. Her Ruth Davidson pseudo Tory party will explode if ever exposed to the truth.
You're welcome.
Self aggrandising is hardly a quality with which one might judge one politician against any other - and as far as policy is concerned, she's not really been around long enough, or been near enough executive power, to make a hard judgment. I appreciate that her politics are diametrically opposed to yours in imporatant respects, but as far as her qualities as a leader are concerned, it's a bit early to judge, IMO. What's undeniable is her facility as a media performer.
For sure , she came from TV and is certainly good at the media , but only when done by tame hosts. When she is exposed to real interviews she fails , far too shouty and gets annoyed by being asked real questions. She is an empty suit and a big suit at that.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
Just read a sun peice about bringing new blood into the cabinet. It mentions Cleverly, Atkins, Raab but no mention of Mercer? I'd see him as one to watch
Erm, what about Rory?
It would be high risk for a junior MP to accept a ministerial appointment. They'll be getting walloped from all sides, briefed against and in constant danger of being hug out to dry.
At least on the backbenches, you can be Mr/Mrs constituency and stay fairly anonymous until it suits.
Remember Stephen Crabb accepting the DWP job in March '16? It was a rather poisoned chalice which didn't do him any favours.
Rory is already a Minister. In fact he is two ministers. He is Minister of State for International Development and Minister of State for Africa. He is also the Chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee.
So I suspect he can hold his own against the wallopers.
The invisible man, being in charge of the equivalent of a table and chairs tells all. Can he go any lower.
Morning Malcolm. Nice to see you making your normal valuable contribution to the debate this morning. And of course he can go lower. If he was really unlucky he could be a minister in the Scottish Government.
Fluffy Mundell's puppet you mean, that is even lower than I imagined.
Just read a sun peice about bringing new blood into the cabinet. It mentions Cleverly, Atkins, Raab but no mention of Mercer? I'd see him as one to watch
Erm, what about Rory?
It would be high risk for a junior MP to accept a ministerial appointment. They'll be getting walloped from all sides, briefed against and in constant danger of being hug out to dry.
At least on the backbenches, you can be Mr/Mrs constituency and stay fairly anonymous until it suits.
Remember Stephen Crabb accepting the DWP job in March '16? It was a rather poisoned chalice which didn't do him any favours.
Rory is already a Minister. In fact he is two ministers. He is Minister of State for International Development and Minister of State for Africa. He is also the Chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee.
So I suspect he can hold his own against the wallopers.
The invisible man, being in charge of the equivalent of a table and chairs tells all. Can he go any lower.
Morning Malcolm. Nice to see you making your normal valuable contribution to the debate this morning. And of course he can go lower. If he was really unlucky he could be a minister in the Scottish Government.
Fluffy Mundell's puppet you mean, that is even lower than I imagined.
+100% ! Much of the comment on here and in the British press has woefully misinterpreted and misunderstood the mood in both Spain generally and Catalonia particularly.
Hard to see past the fascists jackboots crunching people's heads for daring to want to have a vote on their lives.
remainers are pining for leadership from two blokes who were outwitted by a bus
I execrate George Osborne as the progenitor of "Help-To-Buy", the single stupidest policy that came out of the Cameron government (if you don't count Brexit), and he should be impaled on a stick and beaten by the mob. I cannot for the life of me understand TSE's infatuation with him.
The main deficiency, surely, of Help to Buy is that it applies only to new build.
A couple of interesting points I've come across this morning, where are the post-conference opinion polls. Normally the DTM are full of the "bounce" that parties and their respective leaders have achieved levels of popularity never seen since Boudicca took on those nasty people from Italy...
Meanwhile, seems the EU commission are in serious talks with the Labour Party officials as they want assurances that an imminent Labour Government won't tear up any agreements already made:
That strikes me as absolutely against diplomatic protocol.
The EU, once again, demonstrating that they don't know how to behave appropriately.
Er! No, just being realistic. Even the UK Civil Servants will have been talking to the Labour Party so that in any chance of an election, there will be a smooth handover and a sense of continuance.
Civil servants doing so is part of normal constitutional process.
A foreign power negotiating with the opposition is not.
(But in any event it's a moot point as, once again, the headline doesn't match the story. It's only one 2 hour meeting)
Nice of them to try to help dig Scotland out of the hole the SNP dug for it.....
Nah. They are right. The idea that our Emergency services should be paying VAT - in effect giving back a large chunk of their budget to the Treasury - is just idiotic.
+100% ! Much of the comment on here and in the British press has woefully misinterpreted and misunderstood the mood in both Spain generally and Catalonia particularly.
Sorry but that is simply not the case. It was made clear in the British media prior to the referendum that most of the Catalans were opposed to independence and that the vote would fail. That is why we all looked on with such incredulity as the Spanish thug Government foirst banned the referendum and then used the tactics of Franco to try and enforce their will.
It is not completely immaterial whether the Catalans wanted or did not want independence. All that matters is that a supposed first world democracy used riot police to prevent people casting votes in an election they were going to lose anyway.
That c*** Osborne is the source of a huge number of the problems, he’s certainly not part of any solution.
I'd rather he be in the tent pissing out than what he's currently doing. Plus he's got a very sharp political mind, were he the chancellor in the run up to the election he would never have allowed the dementia tax to get anywhere near the papers.
"Pasty Tax" - Courtesy of one George Osborne.
And his clever ruse of saying only millionaires should pay IHT has been grabbed by the left and twisted to say only millionaires should pay any tax.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
+100% ! Much of the comment on here and in the British press has woefully misinterpreted and misunderstood the mood in both Spain generally and Catalonia particularly.
As I recall the complexity of the situation, the divisions in Catalonia, and the escalation from both sides has been at the forefront both here and elsewhere. Certainly the police action on the referendum day provoked a lot of strong views that, regardless of who was most to blame for escalation that action was wrong, but it is one of the few subjects on here which has been greeted with any level of nuance, in general.
That was my impression. Perhaps expressing a multitude of views counts as woeful misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Strange that millions of Catalans are so unwilling to publicly show their support for Spain indivisible that Madrid has to bus in demonstrators. Mind you, if it's these guys, who could blame Hispano Catalans being a bit fastidious.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
+100% ! Much of the comment on here and in the British press has woefully misinterpreted and misunderstood the mood in both Spain generally and Catalonia particularly.
As I recall the complexity of the situation, the divisions in Catalonia, and the escalation from both sides has been at the forefront both here and elsewhere. Certainly the police action on the referendum day provoked a lot of strong views that, regardless of who was most to blame for escalation that action was wrong, but it is one of the few subjects on here which has been greeted with any level of nuance, in general.
That was my impression. Perhaps expressing a multitude of views counts as woeful misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Strange that millions of Catalans are so unwilling to publicly show their support for Spain indivisible that Madrid has to bus in demonstrators. Mind you, if it's these guys, who could blame Hispano Catalans being a bit fastidious.
A couple of interesting points I've come across this morning, where are the post-conference opinion polls. Normally the DTM are full of the "bounce" that parties and their respective leaders have achieved levels of popularity never seen since Boudicca took on those nasty people from Italy...
Meanwhile, seems the EU commission are in serious talks with the Labour Party officials as they want assurances that an imminent Labour Government won't tear up any agreements already made:
That strikes me as absolutely against diplomatic protocol.
The EU, once again, demonstrating that they don't know how to behave appropriately.
Er! No, just being realistic. Even the UK Civil Servants will have been talking to the Labour Party so that in any chance of an election, there will be a smooth handover and a sense of continuance.
Civil servants doing so is part of normal constitutional process.
A foreign power negotiating with the opposition is not.
(But in any event it's a moot point as, once again, the headline doesn't match the story. It's only one 2 hour meeting)
You don't bring back Osborne for vision - you bring him back because he is a winner.
But I see no reason why Osborne would want to save May when he probably thinks many in the Cabinet would do a better job than her.
Hmmmm.
If we take the TSE metric of over 50% as a win, then he won one election by the grace of another party imploding. This was out of two. He also lost the only referendum in which he was heavily involved. That's not really the profile of a 'winner'.
Osborne' key problem is that he can't appear to deal with his changed status. As Chancellor in the coalition, he was forever leaking to his mates in the Telegraph how he was the real deputy Prime Minister and Hague and Clegg were just there for show. Then came 2015 and suddenly he was Deputy to Cameron and heir apparent de jure and de facto, everything he had dreamed of. Then came the referendum, he came up with Project Fear - and it all blew up in his face.
It's his behaviour since then that suggests May was right about him. If he had accepted that he screwed up, reminded himself that at 46 he was still younger than any twentieth century PM other than Blair, got his head down and worked on major projects from the backbenches - the northern powerhouse perhaps, or sitting on the board of Shelter and learning about real people's lives and problems, while offering passive support to May, he would now almost certainly be the Prime Minister. Because he hasn't the humility to accept his failings, he's just run a nasty, personal and less than scrupulously honest campaign against someone who beat him to the prize and then had the nerve to tell him some home truths. In doing so, he may be damaging May but he is destroying himself. He is busily filling that second grave you dig before heading off to take revenge with the corpse of his political career and reputation and he doesn't even appear to realise it.
Such a person would not make a good PM, and he shouldn't be returned to the Cabinet. He had his chance, and he didn't so much blow it as throw it into the path of an oncoming hurricane while firing RPGs at it for good measure.
Dave was also heavily involved in the AV referendum, possibly the most game changing referendum in the history of the country.
remainers are pining for leadership from two blokes who were outwitted by a bus
I execrate George Osborne as the progenitor of "Help-To-Buy", the single stupidest policy that came out of the Cameron government (if you don't count Brexit), and he should be impaled on a stick and beaten by the mob. I cannot for the life of me understand TSE's infatuation with him.
Quite agree. In one fell swoop - combined with funding for lending - Osborne essentially managed to almost double house prices overnight in many parts of London and the SE with help to buy. Developers were essentially able to add 20 per cent to new build prices over night - now 40 per cent in London - all bankrolled by the Government taking the risk and borrowed by the poor first time buyer now paying far more for the same thing. Great news for developers - their Directors are making record bonuses - at the expense of young renters.
Young people might have thought they had a hope of buying a home in London and the south east in 2010. Now it's a pipe dream and you need to earn £100k to buy a house in Dagenham.
If anyone suggested the Government should provide five year interest free loans to buy 20 or 40 per cent of any other good or asset to boost one business sector people would be outraged - but when it comes to propping up crazy house prices and making the Tories second largest donors bigger profits no expense is spared. A scandal of immense proportions.
How about 40 per cent government interest free loans for five years to buy plasma TVs or Lamborghinis or yachts. Imagine how crazy that sounds!
And you wonder why young people aren't keen on the Tories - no point backing people promising more of the same ideas which have ruined your hope of a secure future.
A couple of interesting points I've come across this morning, where are the post-conference opinion polls. Normally the DTM are full of the "bounce" that parties and their respective leaders have achieved levels of popularity never seen since Boudicca took on those nasty people from Italy...
Meanwhile, seems the EU commission are in serious talks with the Labour Party officials as they want assurances that an imminent Labour Government won't tear up any agreements already made:
That strikes me as absolutely against diplomatic protocol.
The EU, once again, demonstrating that they don't know how to behave appropriately.
Er! No, just being realistic. Even the UK Civil Servants will have been talking to the Labour Party so that in any chance of an election, there will be a smooth handover and a sense of continuance.
Civil servants doing so is part of normal constitutional process.
A foreign power negotiating with the opposition is not.
(But in any event it's a moot point as, once again, the headline doesn't match the story. It's only one 2 hour meeting)
The EU is not a foreign power unless we leave it.
While we are negotiating to leave they are (quite reasonably) acting as a foreign power
As mentioned on the previous thread, the Observer says they have an Opinium poll post-conferences which shows Labour and Corbyn up, May down, but no figures on that, so far as I can see. Odd.
volcanopete: essentially the MP pension scheme gives you a proportion of final salary for every year you serve - used to be 1/40, then 1/50, and is now I think 1/60. There is some sort of cap (66%? Not in issue unless you serve several decades), but you can buy a couple of years in retrospect. I get about £17K before tax for 13 years' service. It's good, but not so magnificent as to affect career decisions much, I'd have thought. Ex-Ministers have a separate scheme which presumably is as good and will reflect their extra salaries.
I’d say that a £17k annual pension for 13 years’ service, is considerably above what anyone in the public or private sectors could expect in the same time frame - especially when thanks to Gordon Brown’s changes there are now almost no final salary schemes in the private sector any more. It’s nothing personal, but is a fantastic example of how those who make the rules for others manage to exempt themselves from any downside.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Nice of them to try to help dig Scotland out of the hole the SNP dug for it.....
Nah. They are right. The idea that our Emergency services should be paying VAT - in effect giving back a large chunk of their budget to the Treasury - is just idiotic.
Then the SNP should have thought of that before they centralised them and stripped local authorities of their powers.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
Times: "Theresa May plots to demote Boris Johnson in reshuffle" Guardian: "Theresa May suggests she is prepared to demote Boris Johnson" Financial Times: "May hints at reshuffle as plot fizzles out"
Rubbish! This story and the resultant chatter are among the most ridiculous I have ever seen. May is NOT about to demote Johnson.
Why? Because "When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."
The story probably originates from the Johnson camp.
I had a dutched investment on Davis-Mogg-Rudd. Since Johnson didn't drift as I expected, I invested a little in him a few days ago, enough to make sure I will make a small profit if he wins. Going by what I've heard (not repeatable here, although hinted at in Private Eye) regarding the support Johnson is getting from certain billionaires, I may well tilt my book in his direction later this week.
In the unlikely event that the story doesn't come from Johnson, he will warmly welcome it. May's shaking of a stick at him without any follow-through makes him look stronger and her weaker. And he was already the strongest-looking senior member of the cabinet, even if he hasn't got much competition
There is so little competition that some are talking about George Osborne being appointed as Foreign Secretary. By what route? Ennoblement? By-election? Or just appoint him without either? What a fantasy. That's however hard the Lebedevs would punch the air.
The atmosphere sounds redolent of the morale in the Reichstag at the end of WW1. May is weaker than Harold Macmillan at the time of the Night of the Long Knives in 1962. She is also a lot weaker than John Major who rolled up his shirtsleeves and said "Come and have a go if you're hard enough" in 1995 and then easily defeated John Redwood. She is not in a position to follow either of those moves. She is finished.
Times: "Theresa May plots to demote Boris Johnson in reshuffle" Guardian: "Theresa May suggests she is prepared to demote Boris Johnson" Financial Times: "May hints at reshuffle as plot fizzles out"
Rubbish! This story and the resultant chatter are among the most ridiculous I have ever seen. May is NOT about to demote Johnson.
Why? Because "When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."
The story probably originates from the Johnson camp.
The story originates from an interview Mrs May gave to The Sunday Times.
I execrate George Osborne as the progenitor of "Help-To-Buy", the single stupidest policy that came out of the Cameron government (if you don't count Brexit), and he should be impaled on a stick and beaten by the mob. I cannot for the life of me understand TSE's infatuation with him.
++
I genuinely do not understand why people rate Osborne. His background, persona, policies, and behaviour all look like negatives to me. The idea that he is a potential saviour of the Tory party is extremely fanciful. Politics would be better if we had heard the last of George Osborne.
Dr. Foxinsox, it was a bullshit term when Miliband called it the Promise of Britain or somesuch, and it's a bullshit idea now.
Politicians aping either American slogans or South American economics are daft sods.
Agreed. The management of the PR for the British brand seems as if it's run by drug-addled "creatives" on short-term contracts. There is no British dream, there never has been, and there never will be. That just isn't what this country is like, as anyone who's from it and who has a brain is aware.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
What took place in Rotherham (and other places) was a very clear failure on the part of local government to do the job they were supposed to do, out of fear of offending a section of the voters. The Catholic Church has rightly been castigated over child abuse.
Times: "Theresa May plots to demote Boris Johnson in reshuffle" Guardian: "Theresa May suggests she is prepared to demote Boris Johnson" Financial Times: "May hints at reshuffle as plot fizzles out"
Rubbish! This story and the resultant chatter are among the most ridiculous I have ever seen. May is NOT about to demote Johnson.
Why? Because "When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."
The story probably originates from the Johnson camp.
The story originates from an interview Mrs May gave to The Sunday Times.
I wouldn't be confident that it has come out the way she wanted, that she wasn't stitched up:
Asked what she might do with the foreign secretary: “It has never been my style to hide from a challenge and I’m not going to start now."
“I’m the PM, and part of my job is to make sure I always have the best people in my cabinet, to make the most of the wealth of talent available to me in the party.”
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
Racists can only be english
Nah, have you ever been to Northern Ireland or Scotland?
A couple of interesting points I've come across this morning, where are the post-conference opinion polls. Normally the DTM are full of the "bounce" that parties and their respective leaders have achieved levels of popularity never seen since Boudicca took on those nasty people from Italy...
Meanwhile, seems the EU commission are in serious talks with the Labour Party officials as they want assurances that an imminent Labour Government won't tear up any agreements already made:
That strikes me as absolutely against diplomatic protocol.
The EU, once again, demonstrating that they don't know how to behave appropriately.
Er! No, just being realistic. Even the UK Civil Servants will have been talking to the Labour Party so that in any chance of an election, there will be a smooth handover and a sense of continuance.
Civil servants doing so is part of normal constitutional process.
A foreign power negotiating with the opposition is not.
(But in any event it's a moot point as, once again, the headline doesn't match the story. It's only one 2 hour meeting)
The EU is not a foreign power unless we leave it.
While we are negotiating to leave they are (quite reasonably) acting as a foreign power
We are, until March 2019, a senior member of the organisation. As of the leave date we will not have the privileges or rights of membership, or the responsibilities of membership. You, and others may not like it, but that's the rules of the club we, by our own elected representatives have signed up for. To call the EU commission a "Foreign Power" is incompetent. If on the other side, the EU Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament decide that they can't be bothered wasting their time negotiating with the UK government and instruct the Commission to end the negotiations and Brexit is in effect immediately, then I wonder how many Brexiteers will be calling foul.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
What took place in Rotherham (and other places) was a very clear failure on the part of local government to do the job they were supposed to do, out of fear of offending a section of the voters. The Catholic Church has rightly been castigated over child abuse.
But the guilty in the Catholic church were allowed to get away with it for ages, some have never been brought to justice.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
Racists can only be english
The British are near the bottom of the league when it comes to racism in Europe:
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
Racists can only be english
The British are near the bottom of the league when it comes to racism in Europe:
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
Racists can only be english
Nah, have you ever been to Northern Ireland or Scotland?
We are just bigoted you are the spawn of David Dukes
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
I think the 1930s were another age and as such another country.
What we tend to forget is that such racism as was expressed in the 1930s was much closer to mainstream opinion. It is only through the prism of WW2 that things like the Blackshirts are seen as the extremists they really were. That is not to say that there weren't those in the 30s who recognised their evil and fought against them, but they came to such prominence and got as close as they did to power not because their views were suppressed but because they were, to a large extent, considered mainstream.
Even in the 1970s there was far more in the way of casual racism as part of day to day life which then allowed the NF to gain a tenuous foothold.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
It was the centrepiece of Mays spee h. She really is an appalling communicator.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
Racists can only be english
The British are near the bottom of the league when it comes to racism in Europe:
Why can’t we be as racist as the Germans or the Poles?
A friend of mine often visits a part of Poland where his wife grew up, and she has relatives. He was pretty shocked to learn that, while there is no nostalgia for German rule, the massacre of local Jews is referred to by the locals as "pest control."
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
Followed by an afternoon in front of a roaring fire with a pint and a good book.
I think it is a good idea to bring back George Osborne -although he does not currently have a seat in parliament.
May has apparently been given good advice: bring in younger MPs to her cabinet, one of whom could succeed her.
The current cabinet of grotesques are doomed and stand no chance of winning a general election. Strident Rudd, weary on the rebound Davies, personality bypass Hammond -and fat buffoon, Donald Trump lookalike Johnson would all fall flat. Somewhere out there is the next Tory pm and election winner who will save the Tories -and Labour -from Corbyn.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
I agree. A nice lunch in a village in North Hertfordshire or the Chilterns, followed by a walk in the country, is ideal. I did it yesterday.
A couple of interesting points I've come across this morning, where are the post-conference opinion polls. Normally the DTM are full of the "bounce" that parties and their respective leaders have achieved levels of popularity never seen since Boudicca took on those nasty people from Italy...
Meanwhile, seems the EU commission are in serious talks with the Labour Party officials as they want assurances that an imminent Labour Government won't tear up any agreements already made:
That strikes me as absolutely against diplomatic protocol.
The EU, once again, demonstrating that they don't know how to behave appropriately.
Er! No, just being realistic. Even the UK Civil Servants will have been talking to the Labour Party so that in any chance of an election, there will be a smooth handover and a sense of continuance.
Civil servants doing so is part of normal constitutional process.
A foreign power negotiating with the opposition is not.
(But in any event it's a moot point as, once again, the headline doesn't match the story. It's only one 2 hour meeting)
The EU is not a foreign power unless we leave it.
While we are negotiating to leave they are (quite reasonably) acting as a foreign power
We are, until March 2019, a senior member of the organisation. As of the leave date we will not have the privileges or rights of membership, or the responsibilities of membership. You, and others may not like it, but that's the rules of the club we, by our own elected representatives have signed up for. To call the EU commission a "Foreign Power" is incompetent. If on the other side, the EU Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament decide that they can't be bothered wasting their time negotiating with the UK government and instruct the Commission to end the negotiations and Brexit is in effect immediately, then I wonder how many Brexiteers will be calling foul.
It's not incompetent, whatever else it is. We may still be members of the EI but in these negotiations they are representing the interests of the other EU members not us. If you want to call them "the representatives of the EU ex UK countries" be my guess although it's a little clunky.
Of course they have the right to terminate negotiations, but Brexit would start in March 2019 not immediately.
In any event negotiations about government business happens with the government not the opposition regardless of their political colour.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
What took place in Rotherham (and other places) was a very clear failure on the part of local government to do the job they were supposed to do, out of fear of offending a section of the voters. The Catholic Church has rightly been castigated over child abuse.
But the guilty in the Catholic church were allowed to get away with it for ages, some have never been brought to justice.
I am not sure that one example of turning a blind eye justifies another.
The Catholic Church abusers were generally single men acting alone - albeit the abuse was covered up by an institution.
In Rotherham - a borough of barely 250,000 people - up to 1400 young girls were raped and abused by organised gangs of men who traded these girls around and committed the abuse multiple times often in single incidents. Men who often had wives and daughters of their own.
1400 girls out of the school age population there is huge. Yet the complaints of their parents and these girls were consistently ignored by the police, the council and local politicians.
It doesn't justify either - but when it's the authorities and the local government covering it up or at least ignoring it in some ways it is far worse.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
What took place in Rotherham (and other places) was a very clear failure on the part of local government to do the job they were supposed to do, out of fear of offending a section of the voters. The Catholic Church has rightly been castigated over child abuse.
But the guilty in the Catholic church were allowed to get away with it for ages, some have never been brought to justice.
Not (in this country) because the authorities covered up for them. I accept that in Ireland, they did.
Why can’t we be as racist as the Germans or the Poles?
I love how, in the list of open questions, there is not a question as to the accuracy of the test itself in measuring racism.
For me, the big issue with the Harvard test relates to what makes it effective at what it does - its reliance on the limbic brain response (the fast or emotional brain) to tease out our subconscious biases. But we as people, and our values and personalities, are not simply a one-dimensional score of our subconscious biases. If we were, there would be no brave soldiers. We spend our lives learning to recognize and overcome these subconscious biases, to become better people making better decisions.
A subconscious bias to associate black with bad does not neatly equate to racism for numerous reasons - first and foremost of which is our rational brain which evolved precisely to improve upon the worldview our limbic brain creates for us. Furthermore, regardless of our subconscious biases, many of us work with people of different ethnicities and have habitualised more enlightened behaviours which short-circuit the subconscious biases.
For me, the Harvard test has performed a massive service in exposing smug assumptions among a sector of society that they are emotionally evolved and hence post-racist. But I think the test is misunderstood and misapplied by many, starting with Malcolm Gladwell.
I execrate George Osborne as the progenitor of "Help-To-Buy", the single stupidest policy that came out of the Cameron government (if you don't count Brexit), and he should be impaled on a stick and beaten by the mob. I cannot for the life of me understand TSE's infatuation with him.
++
I genuinely do not understand why people rate Osborne. His background, persona, policies, and behaviour all look like negatives to me. The idea that he is a potential saviour of the Tory party is extremely fanciful. Politics would be better if we had heard the last of George Osborne.
His policies have actually arguably destroyed the Tories long term prospects - why he is lauded is beyond me. His failure on housing and his selective austerity - cutting social care for the elderly and disabled while bumping up corporate welfare - has led us to where we are now. And he still added £600bn to the national debt - more than every government up to 1997 put together. Plus cuts to police and fire which have seen crime levels soar.
And his nasty negative scare mongering during the referendum probably contributed to a leave win.
Mrs May has been left with the mess but Osborne arguably created it. And his nasty bitterness since - using the Standard as his mouth piece - just illustrates what an unpleasant piece of work he is.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
I think the 1930s were another age and as such another country.
What we tend to forget is that such racism as was expressed in the 1930s was much closer to mainstream opinion. It is only through the prism of WW2 that things like the Blackshirts are seen as the extremists they really were. That is not to say that there weren't those in the 30s who recognised their evil and fought against them, but they came to such prominence and got as close as they did to power not because their views were suppressed but because they were, to a large extent, considered mainstream.
Even in the 1970s there was far more in the way of casual racism as part of day to day life which then allowed the NF to gain a tenuous foothold.
With regard to the NF in the 1970s , in what way was the more recent foothold of the BNP any different?
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
Today in south Devon is just perfect. Bright blue skies, Start Bay like a millpond. People in shirt-sleeves. A walk down to the light-house, then a sea-side pub lunch (Sunday roast followed by a sticky toffee pudding) - with good-natured dogs everywhere.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
I agree. A nice lunch in a village in North Hertfordshire or the Chilterns, followed by a walk in the country, is ideal.
Glorious.
I do like this idea the american dream is about working hard and making it big, while ours is being comfortable and relaxed, probably not as rich or powerful but you don't work so damn hard to get there.
Mr. Eagles, the relative rise of the far right is in no small part due to the weak-kneed failure to defend British culture and values. If authorities had come down on child rapists in Rotherham, and many other places, like a ton of bricks, it would've reinforced confidence in the system. Instead they turned a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
Racists are always going to come crawling out of the woodwork when mainstream politicians give them cover.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
I think the 1930s were another age and as such another country.
What we tend to forget is that such racism as was expressed in the 1930s was much closer to mainstream opinion. It is only through the prism of WW2 that things like the Blackshirts are seen as the extremists they really were. That is not to say that there weren't those in the 30s who recognised their evil and fought against them, but they came to such prominence and got as close as they did to power not because their views were suppressed but because they were, to a large extent, considered mainstream.
Even in the 1970s there was far more in the way of casual racism as part of day to day life which then allowed the NF to gain a tenuous foothold.
With regard to the NF in the 1970s , in what way was the more recent foothold of the BNP any different?
The BNP was a lot more successful than the NF, before they imploded. They won 570,000 votes in 2010, compared to 190,000 for the NF in 1979. At their highest point, they held 60 council seats, and two MEP's, which the NF never achieved.
Dr. Foxinsox, it was a bullshit term when Miliband called it the Promise of Britain or somesuch, and it's a bullshit idea now.
Politicians aping either American slogans or South American economics are daft sods.
Agreed. The management of the PR for the British brand seems as if it's run by drug-addled "creatives" on short-term contracts. There is no British dream, there never has been, and there never will be. That just isn't what this country is like, as anyone who's from it and who has a brain is aware.
Having been absent from Britain apart from visits for 25 years now, my view of Britain and what it is to be British may be dated, but it can be summed up in a few adjectives:
It is amazing what people will find to complain about (and how much they complain) be it noise or view or something else. Which is not to say some level of annoyance at those things being sullied is not reasonable, but people really go way too far - children playing in a park?
If you ever take a peak at representations against licensing applications you will find a treasure trove of such complaints, often against things that not licensable activities, legally impossible to prevent, or an existing situation which they provide no evidence the new activity will make worse.
I do like this idea the american dream is about working hard and making it big, while ours is being comfortable and relaxed, probably not as rich or powerful but you don't work so damn hard to get there.
Mind you it is a funny idea that America isn't equally stratified in all sorts of ways, and also class conscious if perhaps to a lesser degree than here. Wealth, race, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, locality, education and more factor heavily in how Americans perceive one another. "Fly over states", rednecks, deplorables, Ivy league, white trash, and lots more. Americans may not show undue deference to "their betters" as we do, but they can find a hundred other reasons for looking down on one another.
Dr. Foxinsox, it was a bullshit term when Miliband called it the Promise of Britain or somesuch, and it's a bullshit idea now.
Politicians aping either American slogans or South American economics are daft sods.
Agreed. The management of the PR for the British brand seems as if it's run by drug-addled "creatives" on short-term contracts. There is no British dream, there never has been, and there never will be. That just isn't what this country is like, as anyone who's from it and who has a brain is aware.
Having been absent from Britain apart from visits for 25 years now, my view of Britain and what it is to be British may be dated, but it can be summed up in a few adjectives:
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
Today in south Devon is just perfect. Bright blue skies, Start Bay like a millpond. People in shirt-sleeves. A walk down to the light-house, then a sea-side pub lunch (Sunday roast followed by a sticky toffee pudding) - with good-natured dogs everywhere.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
I agree. A nice lunch in a village in North Hertfordshire or the Chilterns, followed by a walk in the country, is ideal. I did it yesterday.
The British countryside and country pubs are the two things I most miss about Britain.
I do like this idea the american dream is about working hard and making it big, while ours is being comfortable and relaxed, probably not as rich or powerful but you don't work so damn hard to get there.
Mind you it is a funny idea that America isn't equally stratified in all sorts of ways, and also class conscious if perhaps to a lesser degree than here. Wealth, race, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, locality, education and more factor heavily in how Americans perceive one another. "Fly over states", rednecks, deplorables, Ivy league, white trash, and lots more. Americans may not show undue deference to "their betters" as we do, but they can find a hundred other reasons for looking down on one another.
I've always been struck, in american tv shows at least (I have not had the pleasure of visiting) that they seem more class conscious and snobbish, or at least that is how they portray the comfortable to super well off to rich (not including self made new rich), and the down to earth heroes with massive chips on their shoulders about the wealthy, but perhaps that is just down to narrative cliches. And in fairness I do not know many people who are really well off even, even online (though I was disappointed to learn that Charles does not have 8 names, three of them double-barrelled).
Dr. Foxinsox, it was a bullshit term when Miliband called it the Promise of Britain or somesuch, and it's a bullshit idea now.
Politicians aping either American slogans or South American economics are daft sods.
Agreed. The management of the PR for the British brand seems as if it's run by drug-addled "creatives" on short-term contracts. There is no British dream, there never has been, and there never will be. That just isn't what this country is like, as anyone who's from it and who has a brain is aware.
Having been absent from Britain apart from visits for 25 years now, my view of Britain and what it is to be British may be dated, but it can be summed up in a few adjectives:
I do like this idea the american dream is about working hard and making it big, while ours is being comfortable and relaxed, probably not as rich or powerful but you don't work so damn hard to get there.
That is what I was trying to encapsulate in the word 'comfy'
Dr. Foxinsox, it was a bullshit term when Miliband called it the Promise of Britain or somesuch, and it's a bullshit idea now.
Politicians aping either American slogans or South American economics are daft sods.
Agreed. The management of the PR for the British brand seems as if it's run by drug-addled "creatives" on short-term contracts. There is no British dream, there never has been, and there never will be. That just isn't what this country is like, as anyone who's from it and who has a brain is aware.
Having been absent from Britain apart from visits for 25 years now my view of Britain and what it is to be British may be dated
Well Brexit is taking us back to the pre-70s, so you are actually about 20 years ahead in your view.
With regard to the NF in the 1970s , in what way was the more recent foothold of the BNP any different?
The BNP was really the last gasp of the NF. Their beliefs were already on life support, they just didn't realise it. That is not to say that there isn't still racism today nor that it is not a problem but the mainstream view of the 1970s was that they might have a point but go a bit far whereas today they are rightly recognised as beyond the pale.
I do genuinely believe that to a large extent the public has just moved on and sees the whole idea of race war and white superiority as a bit meh. We all have friends and colleagues, indeed many of us have family members, from ethnic minorities and that, more than anything else, has killed the ability of the far right to drive a wedge between people.
It is amazing what people will find to complain about (and how much they complain) be it noise or view or something else. Which is not to say some level of annoyance at those things being sullied is not reasonable, but people really go way too far - children playing in a park?
If you ever take a peak at representations against licensing applications you will find a treasure trove of such complaints, often against things that not licensable activities, legally impossible to prevent, or an existing situation which they provide no evidence the new activity will make worse.
Indeed. We need to ask. What is a park for? If you want peace and quiet....go to the countryside! They are places for recreation. Some forms of recreation create noise.
As I said, miserable gits. And the Council ought to tell them to bugger off, instead of pandering to them.
Probably the same people who berate young people for playing on XBoxes and being anti-social.
It is amazing what people will find to complain about (and how much they complain) be it noise or view or something else. Which is not to say some level of annoyance at those things being sullied is not reasonable, but people really go way too far - children playing in a park?
If you ever take a peak at representations against licensing applications you will find a treasure trove of such complaints, often against things that not licensable activities, legally impossible to prevent, or an existing situation which they provide no evidence the new activity will make worse.
In the small town where I live a house was built, about 20 years ago, next to a pub which had been there for some 200+ years. The second purchaser of the house used regularly to complain to the pub landlord about noise ...... singing and such ..... coming from the pub late at night, and subsequently cars pulling out of the pub car park. TBH no-one had a lot of sympathy for him!
I've always been struck, in american tv shows at least (I have not had the pleasure of visiting) that they seem more class conscious and snobbish, or at least that is how they portray the comfortable to super well off to rich (not including self made new rich), and the down to earth heroes with massive chips on their shoulders about the wealthy, but perhaps that is just down to narrative cliches.
In the US, the old money class are so small that, to all intents and purposes, everyday people simply never interact with them.
Overall, I'd say the US is better than the UK at having respectful interaction between the monied and the working class, and for the 'lower classes' (not really an applicable term here) being more confident in speaking up to money.
But it is a country of contradictions. It is a much more charitable country in terms of people personally giving of time and money than the UK, but there is also IMO also much higher levels of contempt among other quarters for the very bottom levels of society - the homeless, the addicted, the unemployable.
And, as has been noted, city folk look down on rednecks (which is a largely returned favour) and there are geographical snobberies (but those should be seen more as France vs Belgium, UK vs Ireland etc... as that is the scale we are talking about).
Probably the same people who berate young people for playing on XBoxes and being anti-social.
Even if they were noisy, it is not as though they will be playing rugby round the clock, or after dark. A couple of hours of noise a week from a park is normal and reasonable. Some people seem to exist purely to find new things to moan about.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
Being let alone by the government and supporting small businesses in the company of a like minded community.
Dear God, if that windbag is the answer the UK is truly F******* big time.
Morning Malc!
Morning Gin, hope all is well in the Gin household
Yes thanks Malc.
What did you make of Theresa conference speech?
GIN, have not stopped laughing , what a bunch of no users and thick to boot. Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
Wasn’t she offered the cough sweet? Rather than asking for it?
There is no British Dream outside of Arthurian legend. And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
Someone on here posted a link to Al Murray doing his stage show and talking about the American Dream and why there was no British version.
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
Yes, that was quite funny.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
If anything, the British dream is a nice autumn day, and Sunday Lunch in the pub.
Followed by an afternoon in front of a roaring fire with a pint and a good book.
Nice of them to try to help dig Scotland out of the hole the SNP dug for it.....
Nah. They are right. The idea that our Emergency services should be paying VAT - in effect giving back a large chunk of their budget to the Treasury - is just idiotic.
Richard , Carlotta hates Scotland, she is desperate for it to be beggared , your typical Tory tax exile plastic Scot.
Comments
dripping with poison
'then Mrs May can bring back George Osborne.'
with his freezer
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/catalonia-the-other-side-of-the-story/
No, practical details were a bit thin on the ground. Of course this is just in Scotland, presumably it would x10 when Ruth rides into Downing St on her white steed (or any other farm animal that happens to be available).
King Cole, surely Pegasus?
But with Davidson, she could go into the Lords and then be a member of the cabinet, but until she had resigned her title, she couldn't become PM in a modern parliament. Imagine the hoo hah if she stood at the bar of the HoC answering questions at PMQ's. While too many MP's on all sides of the house would object to her sitting on the Government front bench and standing at the Despatch Box if she wasn't an elected MP.
Taking that paper was unbelievable and to hear the pathetic "does anyone have a cough sweet" from our PM shows how far the UK has plummeted. Theresa reminds me of Blakey from On The Busses and makes you pine for The Great Clunking Dinosaur.
She is an empty suit and a big suit at that.
https://twitter.com/KieranAndrewsSP/status/916977946698674176
A foreign power negotiating with the opposition is not.
(But in any event it's a moot point as, once again, the headline doesn't match the story. It's only one 2 hour meeting)
It is not completely immaterial whether the Catalans wanted or did not want independence. All that matters is that a supposed first world democracy used riot police to prevent people casting votes in an election they were going to lose anyway.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/916931911796346880
Strange that millions of Catalans are so unwilling to publicly show their support for Spain indivisible that Madrid has to bus in demonstrators. Mind you, if it's these guys, who could blame Hispano Catalans being a bit fastidious.
https://twitter.com/ICECintl/status/916964522241425408
Politicians aping either American slogans or South American economics are daft sods.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-41537869?SThisFB
Miserable gits stopping kids having fun and getting some exercise!
Young people might have thought they had a hope of buying a home in London and the south east in 2010. Now it's a pipe dream and you need to earn £100k to buy a house in Dagenham.
If anyone suggested the Government should provide five year interest free loans to buy 20 or 40 per cent of any other good or asset to boost one business sector people would be outraged - but when it comes to propping up crazy house prices and making the Tories second largest donors bigger profits no expense is spared. A scandal of immense proportions.
How about 40 per cent government interest free loans for five years to buy plasma TVs or Lamborghinis or yachts. Imagine how crazy that sounds!
And you wonder why young people aren't keen on the Tories - no point backing people promising more of the same ideas which have ruined your hope of a secure future.
If people feel society is ill and are forced with a choice between a mainstream that offers no medicine, and a far right alternative that offers what they feel is too strong, but better than ignoring the problem, many will go for the radical option.
Besides, we have a far left Opposition right now. Not hard to imagine the far right may do better in electoral terms in the near future than people assume.
That's one reason why it'd be so disastrous to have Corbyn in power. As Machiavelli wrote, people often correct a mistake by leaping too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, on that cheery note, I must be off.
So why do you explain the rise of the far right in the 1930s? or the National Front in the 1970s? What was the Rotherham of that era?
Or was it like then mainstream politicians like Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell gave succour to racists?
Why do you focus on the non prosecutions in Rotherham, but seldom mention the Catholic Church or the plethora of former BBC employees of sexual misconduct?
Guardian: "Theresa May suggests she is prepared to demote Boris Johnson"
Financial Times: "May hints at reshuffle as plot fizzles out"
Rubbish! This story and the resultant chatter are among the most ridiculous I have ever seen. May is NOT about to demote Johnson.
Why? Because "When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."
The story probably originates from the Johnson camp.
I had a dutched investment on Davis-Mogg-Rudd. Since Johnson didn't drift as I expected, I invested a little in him a few days ago, enough to make sure I will make a small profit if he wins. Going by what I've heard (not repeatable here, although hinted at in Private Eye) regarding the support Johnson is getting from certain billionaires, I may well tilt my book in his direction later this week.
In the unlikely event that the story doesn't come from Johnson, he will warmly welcome it. May's shaking of a stick at him without any follow-through makes him look stronger and her weaker. And he was already the strongest-looking senior member of the cabinet, even if he hasn't got much competition
There is so little competition that some are talking about George Osborne being appointed as Foreign Secretary. By what route? Ennoblement? By-election? Or just appoint him without either? What a fantasy. That's however hard the Lebedevs would punch the air.
The atmosphere sounds redolent of the morale in the Reichstag at the end of WW1. May is weaker than Harold Macmillan at the time of the Night of the Long Knives in 1962. She is also a lot weaker than John Major who rolled up his shirtsleeves and said "Come and have a go if you're hard enough" in 1995 and then easily defeated John Redwood. She is not in a position to follow either of those moves. She is finished.
I genuinely do not understand why people rate Osborne. His background, persona, policies, and behaviour all look like negatives to me. The idea that he is a potential saviour of the Tory party is extremely fanciful. Politics would be better if we had heard the last of George Osborne.
Asked what she might do with the foreign secretary: “It has never been my style to hide from a challenge and I’m not going to start now."
“I’m the PM, and part of my job is to make sure I always have the best people in my cabinet, to make the most of the wealth of talent available to me in the party.”
https://qz.com/984587/a-new-study-shows-that-every-european-country-has-negative-racial-bias-towards-black-people/
Why can’t we be as racist as the Germans or the Poles?
And if there are British values, prominent amongst them is scepticism - particularly towards such nonsense.
and Jo Brand
I rest my case
His conclusion. There is no British Dream because we are actually awake.
It does annoy me when politicians talk about "the British dream". It's just a lazy borrowing from US political discourse. It has no resonance here.
If there is a British dream, it's not the American one of working hard and getting rich. Saturated as we are with class hierarchy, we dream mainly of lording it over others. We prefer to be rentiers than real entrepreneurs.
What we tend to forget is that such racism as was expressed in the 1930s was much closer to mainstream opinion. It is only through the prism of WW2 that things like the Blackshirts are seen as the extremists they really were. That is not to say that there weren't those in the 30s who recognised their evil and fought against them, but they came to such prominence and got as close as they did to power not because their views were suppressed but because they were, to a large extent, considered mainstream.
Even in the 1970s there was far more in the way of casual racism as part of day to day life which then allowed the NF to gain a tenuous foothold.
May has apparently been given good advice: bring in younger MPs to her cabinet, one of whom could succeed her.
The current cabinet of grotesques are doomed and stand no chance of winning a general election. Strident Rudd, weary on the rebound Davies, personality bypass Hammond -and fat buffoon, Donald Trump lookalike Johnson would all fall flat. Somewhere out there is the next Tory pm and election winner who will save the Tories -and Labour -from Corbyn.
Of course they have the right to terminate negotiations, but Brexit would start in March 2019 not immediately.
In any event negotiations about government business happens with the government not the opposition regardless of their political colour.
The Catholic Church abusers were generally single men acting alone - albeit the abuse was covered up by an institution.
In Rotherham - a borough of barely 250,000 people - up to 1400 young girls were raped and abused by organised gangs of men who traded these girls around and committed the abuse multiple times often in single incidents. Men who often had wives and daughters of their own.
1400 girls out of the school age population there is huge. Yet the complaints of their parents and these girls were consistently ignored by the police, the council and local politicians.
It doesn't justify either - but when it's the authorities and the local government covering it up or at least ignoring it in some ways it is far worse.
For me, the big issue with the Harvard test relates to what makes it effective at what it does - its reliance on the limbic brain response (the fast or emotional brain) to tease out our subconscious biases. But we as people, and our values and personalities, are not simply a one-dimensional score of our subconscious biases. If we were, there would be no brave soldiers. We spend our lives learning to recognize and overcome these subconscious biases, to become better people making better decisions.
A subconscious bias to associate black with bad does not neatly equate to racism for numerous reasons - first and foremost of which is our rational brain which evolved precisely to improve upon the worldview our limbic brain creates for us. Furthermore, regardless of our subconscious biases, many of us work with people of different ethnicities and have habitualised more enlightened behaviours which short-circuit the subconscious biases.
For me, the Harvard test has performed a massive service in exposing smug assumptions among a sector of society that they are emotionally evolved and hence post-racist. But I think the test is misunderstood and misapplied by many, starting with Malcolm Gladwell.
And his nasty negative scare mongering during the referendum probably contributed to a leave win.
Mrs May has been left with the mess but Osborne arguably created it. And his nasty bitterness since - using the Standard as his mouth piece - just illustrates what an unpleasant piece of work he is.
https://www.visitsouthdevon.co.uk/imageresizer/?image=/dmsimgs/Start_Point_and_Hallsands_1283394740.jpg&action=ProductDetail
I'm living the dream.....
I do like this idea the american dream is about working hard and making it big, while ours is being comfortable and relaxed, probably not as rich or powerful but you don't work so damn hard to get there.
- comfy, tolerant, phlegmatic, gently anti-authoritarian, curious
And on that last word, I'd be curious as to PBers' lists of adjectives.
If you ever take a peak at representations against licensing applications you will find a treasure trove of such complaints, often against things that not licensable activities, legally impossible to prevent, or an existing situation which they provide no evidence the new activity will make worse.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/610711583069720576
I do genuinely believe that to a large extent the public has just moved on and sees the whole idea of race war and white superiority as a bit meh. We all have friends and colleagues, indeed many of us have family members, from ethnic minorities and that, more than anything else, has killed the ability of the far right to drive a wedge between people.
As I said, miserable gits. And the Council ought to tell them to bugger off, instead of pandering to them.
Probably the same people who berate young people for playing on XBoxes and being anti-social.
NEW THREAD
TBH no-one had a lot of sympathy for him!
Overall, I'd say the US is better than the UK at having respectful interaction between the monied and the working class, and for the 'lower classes' (not really an applicable term here) being more confident in speaking up to money.
But it is a country of contradictions. It is a much more charitable country in terms of people personally giving of time and money than the UK, but there is also IMO also much higher levels of contempt among other quarters for the very bottom levels of society - the homeless, the addicted, the unemployable.
And, as has been noted, city folk look down on rednecks (which is a largely returned favour) and there are geographical snobberies (but those should be seen more as France vs Belgium, UK vs Ireland etc... as that is the scale we are talking about).
I'd agree