Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly Oprah Winfrey becomes second favourite for next Presi

24

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,733
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,665

    DavidL said:

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.

    Clearly you need to do more on-line research.
    You'll be baffled by the gym hack used to get into that tiny size 8.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,840
    @JGForsyth: Suella Fernandes becomes the second ERG chair to get a job at DexEU... Almost like they'd rather have them in the tent pissing out than the other way round
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,665
    Couldn't the department for exiting the EU have been abbreviated as something other than DexEU, my brain automatically processes it as God from the machine :/
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,436
    edited January 9
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.
    ....

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Daily Mail sales seem to be 70 per day (Guardian report).

    I think they will end up carrying freesheets and perhaps bulk copies in restaurant cars.

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse. Life is more complicated. Here is the Daily Mirror from 1934 (if the embed works):

    image

    There is a backstory to that as well.

    But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.
    Did Viscount Rothmere really write for the Mirror?

    He owned it, hence it was a Fascist sympathising paper in the 30s.

    Papers change under different editors & owners. I've even heard tell that the Telegraph was a serious, respected organ once upon a time.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    I think they are complaining about the sexual abuse, and harrassment of women, and glass ceilings on careers rather than the objectification, which is a pretty core feature for all genders in the acting world. Or are you suggesting that they are "asking for it"?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me with someone who cares. But for the link yesterday what people wore to the Golden Globes would have forever have remained outside my ken. But if the complaint is that woman are being abused and exploited looking just a tad exploited and over exposed seems odd. The fact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    I think they are complaining about the sexual abuse, and harrassment of women, and glass ceilings on careers rather than the objectification, which is a pretty core feature for all genders in the acting world. Or are you suggesting that they are "asking for it"?
    Don't be ridiculous.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,604
    edited January 9
    Foxy said:

    Essexit said:

    Jonathan said:

    She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

    But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

    Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

    Kilroy to return?

    In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

    I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.
    You don't have to be an MP top be PM.

    You just need the party with a majority in the Commons to select you as their leader, as was Lord Home as PM but not MP.

    Easier to get 300odd MPs to vote for you than the populace as a whole.
    I would not back Oprah, indeed will not be backing anyone with more than penny longshots until the primaries start. Oprah doesnt need just the voters, she needs the Primaries to go her way. I will save my stakes for then.

    Indeed, for both parties, the way for a candidate to emerge is via the Primary process. It has evolved as a way of testing out potential candidates in the field. Generally it produces two reasonable candidates, with 2016 the obvious exception.
    The great unknown is whether Trump will run in 2020. If he does, then Oprah is a great foil for the Dems to offer the voters. If for whatever reason, Trump isn't on the ballot in 2020, then it becomes much more difficult this far out to see who is best placed.

    Still have a niggling thought that Trump's ego will require him to run again in 2020.....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.
    ....

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Daily Mail sales seem to be 70 per day (Guardian report).

    I think they will end up carrying freesheets and perhaps bulk copies in restaurant cars.

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse. Life is more complicated. Here is the Daily Mirror from 1934 (if the embed works):

    image

    There is a backstory to that as well.

    But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.
    Did Viscount Rothmere really write for the Mirror?

    As far as the PPU, there is a world of difference between appeasment (Then government policy, and seen as settling legitimate greivences from the treaty of Versailles) and active cheerleading for fascists in this country.
    "Peace News" the PPU's magazine at the time, justified Kristallnacht and the occupation of the Sudetenland, and advocated a negotiated peace with Germany in 1940. Rose Macaulay commented that the magazine was almost indistinguishable from the BUF publications.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,846
    edited January 9

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.
    ....

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Daily Mail sales seem to be 70 per day (Guardian report).

    I think they will end up carrying freesheets and perhaps bulk copies in restaurant cars.

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse. Life is more complicated. Here is the Daily Mirror from 1934 (if the embed works):

    image

    There is a backstory to that as well.

    But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.
    Did Viscount Rothmere really write for the Mirror?

    He owned it, hence it was a Fascist sympathising paper in the 30s.

    Papers change under different editors & owners. I've even heard tell that the Telegraph was a serious, respected organ once upon a time.
    That's the point. Stuff from that long ago has very little weight.

    Like the Toby Young stuff that says that "x said y when he was 23, therefore he despises z now he is 56".

    Roy Greenslade wrote about it in more detail very well in the G back in 2011 here, with a deeper knowledge than my original Anna Raccoon piece,
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,733
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me with someone who cares. But for the link yesterday what people wore to the Golden Globes would have forever have remained outside my ken. But if the complaint is that woman are being abused and exploited looking just a tad exploited and over exposed seems odd. The fact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,910
    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    Can I recycle yesterday's description please?

    With all the black dresses and flesh on show, it was as if they were attending a Convention of Widowed Tarts.

    (I know, my coat, a very elegant purple number, if you must know, is nearby. Still, my comment is a lot less vulgar than Mr Young's offerings.)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,604
    Scott_P said:

    MattW said:

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse.

    That's a hell of a lot of roughage. Does the Daily Mail make them shit THAT much?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,840

    That's a hell of a lot of roughage. Does the Daily Mail make them shit THAT much?

    That's why they need the Islington Gazette...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,910
    On topic, I know very little about Oprah. If Trump can be President I don't see why Oprah can't.

    Still I can't help being surprised at what makes someone papabile these days. One fine speech? Is that it?

    I have made ca. 100 very fine speeches to a variety of audiences globally (from Australia to the US) over the last 4 years. If fine speech-making is the measure of things and one speech = US Presidential candidate, what does 100 speeches get you? Dictatorette / Dictatrix / Leaderene (?) of the World?

    PS Don't worry. Fat chance.

    PPS Apologies for the badly disguised plug for my business. A girl has gotta eat. And I have an expensive gardening and shoe habit to fund.

    :)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,758
    I notice that Mr "Sugar Tits can you pop out to Ann Summers for me" has got the heave-ho.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me with someone who cares. But for the link yesterday what people wore to the Golden Globes would have forever have remained outside my ken. But if the complaint is that woman are being abused and exploited looking just a tad exploited and over exposed seems odd. The fact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    I can't make that last sentence out. It is probably just as well. Woman are absolutely free to wear what they want (subject to decency laws of course). And they are absolutely entitled to respect and proper conduct no matter what they are wearing. But complaining about being objectified whilst doing one's best to look like a highly decorative object strikes me as funny, bordering on hypocritical.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    Can I recycle yesterday's description please?

    With all the black dresses and flesh on show, it was as if they were attending a Convention of Widowed Tarts.

    (I know, my coat, a very elegant purple number, if you must know, is nearby. Still, my comment is a lot less vulgar than Mr Young's offerings.)
    Oh thank the lord, the cavalry is here. :-)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,758
    George will be most disappointed...

    Burger chain Byron could close up to 20 restaurants as part of a financial rescue proposal.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42625716
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,436
    MattW said:


    That's the point. Stuff from that long ago has very little weight.

    Like the Toby Young stuff that says that "x said y when he was 23, therefore he despises z now he is 56".

    Roy Greenslade wrote about it in more detail very well in the G back in 2011 here, with a deeper knowledge than my original Anna Raccoon piece,
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

    Slightly more weight if the current chairman and controlling shareholder is the great grandson of old Hurrah for the Blackshirts himself. We can never know of course, but I'm pretty sure Dacre would slot beautifully into the 1930s Mail.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating company that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    Free press my butt, the whole bunch of lying cheating toerags are owned and mismanaged by a few right wing Tory Tos****. Ban that toilet roll from everywhere and you would improve the world
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,420

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
    Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

    Thanks. Do you have a source for that?
    If you dig in, it’s clear VT made a commercial decision (they claim space but it’s probably complexity reduction). This was done in the autumn.

    The Mail has fired a broadside - that it’s politically motivated - because if people realised they were not a popular paper then it would undermine their commercial position as the voice of middle England
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    Some interesting junior ministerial appointments: Robert Jenrick, Kit Malthouse, Oliver Dowden, Lucy Frazer, and Rishi Sunak.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/09/reshuffle-government-tory-cabinet-theresa-may-not-quite-says-new-tory-chair-when-asked-about-party-being-in-a-mess-politics-live

    15:06

    Never heard of any of the nomarks in my cream puff
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, I know very little about Oprah. If Trump can be President I don't see why Oprah can't.

    Still I can't help being surprised at what makes someone papabile these days. One fine speech? Is that it?

    I have made ca. 100 very fine speeches to a variety of audiences globally (from Australia to the US) over the last 4 years. If fine speech-making is the measure of things and one speech = US Presidential candidate, what does 100 speeches get you? Dictatorette / Dictatrix / Leaderene (?) of the World?

    PS Don't worry. Fat chance.

    PPS Apologies for the badly disguised plug for my business. A girl has gotta eat. And I have an expensive gardening and shoe habit to fund.

    :)

    Dictatrix sounds good. Until I remember your extreme views on cappuccinos.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,420
    DavidL said:

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    Someone linked to their website yesterday. It's pretty much just soft porn. From my brief perusal there did not seem to be any discrimination as to colour in the endless photographs of women looking "fit" in bikinis, underwear, barely there dresses or whatever kissing whoever with suggestive looks (I've a nasty feeling I was supposed to know who these people were).

    I have read on here that it is one of the most visited websites on the web. That is truly depressing. But I don't see how anyone can take the political views of such a publication seriously let alone get wound up about them.
    Mail Online is very different to the Mail
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,452
    malcolmg said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating company that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    Free press my butt, the whole bunch of lying cheating toerags are owned and mismanaged by a few right wing Tory Tos****. Ban that toilet roll from everywhere and you would improve the world
    Banning newspapers seldom leads to good results.
    And as for your butt, banning toilet paper....
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    What's the take up on Twitter outside London or the other major cities?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,420
    DavidL said:



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
    Track record for not paying...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
    Track record for not paying...
    Alastair has already made that point. $1m up front would seem to solve it though.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    I think they are complaining about the sexual abuse, and harrassment of women, and glass ceilings on careers rather than the objectification, which is a pretty core feature for all genders in the acting world. Or are you suggesting that they are "asking for it"?
    They tend to be giving it away
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,447
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This thread highlights the importance of following Mr. Price's advice. He suggested, as a celebrity tip, Oprah. I considered it but have a few bets on this market already and didn't back her at 50. Oh well.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,426
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
    Track record for not paying...
    I think we'd call it "commercial risk"....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me with someone who cares. But for the link yesterday what people wore to the Golden Globes would have forever have remained outside my ken. But if the complaint is that woman are being abused and exploited looking just a tad exploited and over exposed seems odd. The fact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    I can't make that last sentence out. It is probably just as well. Woman are absolutely free to wear what they want (subject to decency laws of course). And they are absolutely entitled to respect and proper conduct no matter what they are wearing. But complaining about being objectified whilst doing one's best to look like a highly decorative object strikes me as funny, bordering on hypocritical.
    Yes and waiting 10 or 20 years to whinge about it is laughable
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,733
    edited January 9
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    I can't make that last sentence out. It is probably just as well. Woman are absolutely free to wear what they want (subject to decency laws of course). And they are absolutely entitled to respect and proper conduct no matter what they are wearing. But complaining about being objectified whilst doing one's best to look like a highly decorative object strikes me as funny, bordering on hypocritical.
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    But then I realised that such thinking is a) lazy and b) part of the problem. Whether they had the self-awareness or not, the point is that in today's society women should be allowed to wear what they want and not be worried about being discriminated against, or abused, or objectified as a result. It is part of the male mindset which in this example equates not wearing much with some kind of availability, or demeaning of their status.

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,846
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.
    ....

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Daily Mail sales seem to be 70 per day (Guardian report).

    I think they will end up carrying freesheets and perhaps bulk copies in restaurant cars.

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse. Life is more complicated. Here is the Daily Mirror from 1934 (if the embed works):

    image

    There is a backstory to that as well.

    But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.
    Did Viscount Rothmere really write for the Mirror?

    As far as the PPU, there is a world of difference between appeasment (Then government policy, and seen as settling legitimate greivences from the treaty of Versailles) and active cheerleading for fascists in this country.
    "Peace News" the PPU's magazine at the time, justified Kristallnacht and the occupation of the Sudetenland, and advocated a negotiated peace with Germany in 1940. Rose Macaulay commented that the magazine was almost indistinguishable from the BUF publications.
    Thanks @Sean_F.

    I think I recall that the Peace Pledge was signed by quite a number of people.

    It is quite a story. I would love to go and spend half a day in their archives reading up.

    There is a bit more here from Oliver Kamm:
    http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/politics_and_re_1.html
  • O/T

    Conservative Home has it right.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/01/we-ask-nicely-but-what-exactly-was-this-woe-plagued-reshuffle-designed-to-achieve.html

    And its last sentence

    "That cackling noise you hear from Kensington, sulphorously malicious and exultantly gleeful, is George Osborne laughing his head off."

    Declaration of Interest: As an Independent I think all present-day politicos, pundits & commentators are a bunch of wally's.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    But then I realised that such thinking is a) lazy and b) part of the problem. Whether they had the self-awareness or not, the point is that in today's society women should be allowed to wear what they want and not be worried about being discriminated against, or abused, or objectified as a result. It is part of the male mindset which in this example equates not wearing much with some kind of availability, or demeaning of their status.

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,649
    edited January 9
    DavidL said:



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
    Almost certainly cold calculation of self-interest. This POTUS isn't worth any fee. See how Bell-Pottinger blew itself up over its choice of clients. And those clients paid, and paid handsomely.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,733
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    But then I realised that such thinking is a) lazy and b) part of the problem. Whether they had the self-awareness or not, the point is that in today's society women should be allowed to wear what they want and not be worried about being discriminated against, or abused, or objectified as a result. It is part of the male mindset which in this example equates not wearing much with some kind of availability, or demeaning of their status.

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,846

    MattW said:


    That's the point. Stuff from that long ago has very little weight.

    Like the Toby Young stuff that says that "x said y when he was 23, therefore he despises z now he is 56".

    Roy Greenslade wrote about it in more detail very well in the G back in 2011 here, with a deeper knowledge than my original Anna Raccoon piece,
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

    Slightly more weight if the current chairman and controlling shareholder is the great grandson of old Hurrah for the Blackshirts himself. We can never know of course, but I'm pretty sure Dacre would slot beautifully into the 1930s Mail.
    Really? Are you happy with the principle that you are evaluated on the basis of your grandparent's opinions?

    I think that is a very peculiar stance.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125
    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    .

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    That if you're trying to attract attention to yourself, don't complain about attracting attention to yourself.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,977
    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    But then I realised that such thinking is a) lazy and b) part of the problem. Whether they had the self-awareness or not, the point is that in today's society women should be allowed to wear what they want and not be worried about being discriminated against, or abused, or objectified as a result. It is part of the male mindset which in this example equates not wearing much with some kind of availability, or demeaning of their status.

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    Don't get caught staring at her tits.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,733
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    .

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    That if you're trying to attract attention to yourself, don't complain about attracting attention to yourself.
    Did she say she was trying to attract attention to herself?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,041
    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    The answer to this is to pass legislation outlining which publications must be sold where and when.
    It is the only liberal way!

    Not really. Virgin can do as they please, and we are free to criticise them.
    I'm afraid you missed the irony in my post.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    But then I realised that such thinking is a) lazy and b) part of the problem. Whether they had the self-awareness or not, the point is that in today's society women should be allowed to wear what they want and not be worried about being discriminated against, or abused, or objectified as a result. It is part of the male mindset which in this example equates not wearing much with some kind of availability, or demeaning of their status.

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    All men should take degrees in feminist sociology.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,977
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, I know very little about Oprah. If Trump can be President I don't see why Oprah can't.

    Still I can't help being surprised at what makes someone papabile these days. One fine speech? Is that it?

    I have made ca. 100 very fine speeches to a variety of audiences globally (from Australia to the US) over the last 4 years. If fine speech-making is the measure of things and one speech = US Presidential candidate, what does 100 speeches get you? Dictatorette / Dictatrix / Leaderene (?) of the World?

    PS Don't worry. Fat chance.

    PPS Apologies for the badly disguised plug for my business. A girl has gotta eat. And I have an expensive gardening and shoe habit to fund.

    :)

    I beat you on PowerPoint presentations.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.



    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    Don't get caught staring at her tits.
    That, too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,452
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, I know very little about Oprah. If Trump can be President I don't see why Oprah can't.

    Still I can't help being surprised at what makes someone papabile these days. One fine speech? Is that it?

    I have made ca. 100 very fine speeches to a variety of audiences globally (from Australia to the US) over the last 4 years. If fine speech-making is the measure of things and one speech = US Presidential candidate, what does 100 speeches get you? Dictatorette / Dictatrix / Leaderene (?) of the World?

    PS Don't worry. Fat chance.

    PPS Apologies for the badly disguised plug for my business. A girl has gotta eat. And I have an expensive gardening and shoe habit to fund.

    :)

    I think you also need to be a billionaire:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/2020-wealthy-democrats-steyer-winfrey-trump-328187

    (Not to mention a US citizen.)

    Still, that's good news for those who want to enjoy an innocent sprinkle unmolested, I suppose...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,057

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    But then I realised that such thinking is a) lazy and b) part of the problem. Whether they had the self-awareness or not, the point is that in today's society women should be allowed to wear what they want and not be worried about being discriminated against, or abused, or objectified as a result. It is part of the male mindset which in this example equates not wearing much with some kind of availability, or demeaning of their status.

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    All men should take degrees in feminist sociology.
    Absolutely. The lecture room will be wall-to-wall totty.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,041
    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stop Funding Hate ought to be celebrated by all right-leaning and thinking folk. They are causing companies to look at a cost benefit analysis of the impact of the products they stock.
    What could be more free market?
    As ever, others are free to organise, campaign and boycott as they wish.

    Two can play at that game.

    I don't think we would benefit from being a society where Conservatives organised boycotts of any company that was linked to the left, and vice versa.
    2 can play at that game was my point.
    I thought the free market was about competition of goods, services and ideas?
    A company's political stance is one factor in choosing its product.
    And of course society can ONLY benefit from competition.
    Therefore the Right should embrace political boycotts as part of the free market ideal.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,977
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    .

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    That if you're trying to attract attention to yourself, don't complain about attracting attention to yourself.
    I think men are supposed to work out for themselves when it's appropriate or not, and be held accountable for any errors they make.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,733
    edited January 9

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    But then I realised that such thinking is a) lazy and b) part of the problem. Whether they had the self-awareness or not, the point is that in today's society women should be allowed to wear what they want and not be worried about being discriminated against, or abused, or objectified as a result. It is part of the male mindset which in this example equates not wearing much with some kind of availability, or demeaning of their status.

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    All men should take degrees in feminist sociology.
    Absolutely. The lecture room will be wall-to-wall totty.
    Is actually the POTD.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,788
    The one thing a prime minister needs is respect.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,977

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?
    You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.
    So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

    Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?
    .
    1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( :smile: ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

    But then I realised that such thinking is a) lazy and b) part of the problem. Whether they had the self-awareness or not, the point is that in today's society women should be allowed to wear what they want and not be worried about being discriminated against, or abused, or objectified as a result. It is part of the male mindset which in this example equates not wearing much with some kind of availability, or demeaning of their status.

    And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.
    That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.
    What is the moral of that story?
    All men should take degrees in feminist sociology.
    Absolutely. The lecture room will be wall-to-wall totty.
    My best man joined the feminist society at his university 15 years ago for precisely that reason.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125
    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stop Funding Hate ought to be celebrated by all right-leaning and thinking folk. They are causing companies to look at a cost benefit analysis of the impact of the products they stock.
    What could be more free market?
    As ever, others are free to organise, campaign and boycott as they wish.

    Two can play at that game.

    I don't think we would benefit from being a society where Conservatives organised boycotts of any company that was linked to the left, and vice versa.
    2 can play at that game was my point.
    I thought the free market was about competition of goods, services and ideas?
    A company's political stance is one factor in choosing its product.
    And of course society can ONLY benefit from competition.
    Therefore the Right should embrace political boycotts as part of the free market ideal.
    Generally, I choose goods and services on the basis of price and quality.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,649
    The question is whether we think Virgin is more prejudiced about the Mail than the Mail is about immigrants, gays and the unemployed.

    Ten years ago I think a public company would think twice about taking on an influential newspaper like the Mail. It shows they have become a lost less powerful.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 615
    edited January 9

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Regular rail users are much more middle class than average, surveys have showed that time and time again going all the way back to Dr Beeching. You see the core Daily Mail demographic travelling by train a lot - comfortable, provincial, sensible, often retired and using their senior citizens railcard. Plenty of Daily Mails visible on the train especially in the provinces and on long distance intercity routes. For those reasons I really doubt Virgin have got this right re their customer base and it will cause them a lot of headaches with green ink letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. They will regret it I think.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,218
    FF43 said:

    The question is whether we think Virgin is more prejudiced about the Mail than the Mail is about immigrants, gays and the unemployed.

    Ten years ago I think a public company would think twice about taking on an influential newspaper like the Mail. It shows they have become a lost less powerful.

    Alternatively, it shows how relatively unimportant the print editions of newspapers have become compared to the online editions. I doubt Mail actually care all that much (though they are bound to make a fuss about it)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.
    ....

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Daily Mail sales seem to be 70 per day (Guardian report).

    I think they will

    image

    There is a backstory to that as well.

    But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.
    Did Viscount Rothmere really write for the Mirror?

    As far as the PPU, there is a world of difference between appeasment (Then government policy, and seen as settling legitimate greivences from the treaty of Versailles) and active cheerleading for fascists in this country.
    "Peace News" the PPU's magazine at the time, justified Kristallnacht and the occupation of the Sudetenland, and advocated a negotiated peace with Germany in 1940. Rose Macaulay commented that the magazine was almost indistinguishable from the BUF publications.
    And certainly the PPU was wrong about appeasement, and as for the remainder, these were acceptable views in Britain in 1938. Indeed the occupation of the Sudetenland was endorsed by a Tory cabinet and PM. A negotiated Peace with Germany in 1940 was apparantly mooted by Lord Halifax in opposition to Churchill at very senior level of government. These views may be very uncomfortable in hindsight, but weren't out of line with the countries opinions at the time.

    What Rothermere did was domestic rather than foreign policy. He championed the fascist blackshirts on the streets of his own democratic country.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,649
    HHemmelig said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Regular rail users are much more middle class than average, surveys have showed that time and time again going all the way back to Dr Beeching. You see the core Daily Mail demographic travelling by train a lot - comfortable, provincial, sensible, often retired and using their senior citizens railcard. Plenty of Daily Mails visible on the train especially in the provinces and on long distance intercity routes. For those reasons I really doubt Virgin have got this right re their customer base and it will cause them a lot of headaches with green ink letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. They will regret it I think.
    Maybe the sale of the Mail creates more cumulative irritation than the absence of such sales - without in any way challenging your analysis of the train travelling demographic.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,788
    On topic, 10/1 is about right. And about 60% of that uncertainty is whether or not she runs. If she does, much depends on what happens on the other side of the ticket. If she takes on Trump, she wins. But Trump may be brought down in office (unlikely) or in primaries (more likely but still well under 50%).

    If there's a non-Trump GOP candidate, a more conventional Dem politician might be a better bet. But - and this is a big but - what Oprah said and did at the Golden Globes cannot be unsaid or undone. She was a voice for millions (and in a way and on a subject that Hillary could never really be, given Bill's history).

    Is there anyone else that could do that? Bernie, perhaps. But Bernie is old and his politics of niche appeal. Oprah has genuinely lived the American Dream. Daddy didn't set her up in business. In fact, daddy and mummy gave her a rotten start in life.

    If she wants it, her weakest card is her inexperience in politics, coming after Trump has demonstrated the dangers of a non-professional politician. But Oprah is a very very different character to Trump and might be able to assuage fears on that score. We should take the prospect of her becoming the 46th president very seriously.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 615
    edited January 9
    FF43 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Regular rail users are much more middle class than average, surveys have showed that time and time again going all the way back to Dr Beeching. You see the core Daily Mail demographic travelling by train a lot - comfortable, provincial, sensible, often retired and using their senior citizens railcard. Plenty of Daily Mails visible on the train especially in the provinces and on long distance intercity routes. For those reasons I really doubt Virgin have got this right re their customer base and it will cause them a lot of headaches with green ink letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. They will regret it I think.
    Maybe the sale of the Mail creates more cumulative irritation than the absence of such sales - without in any way challenging your analysis of the train travelling demographic.
    Perhaps yes, but they should have quietly stopped selling it blaming lack of sales rather than adding in all the crap about it being incompatible with their brand. It will cause them a load of unnecessary trouble at a difficult time for them re the East Coast franchise, on which the government has been very generous to them.
  • PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 248
    To paraphrase The West Wing about Fitzwallace, is she even a Democrat?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,846
    Scott_P said:
    He seems very well preserved for 85.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 901
    HHemmelig said:


    ... You see the core Daily Mail demographic travelling by train a lot - comfortable, provincial, sensible, often retired and using their senior citizens railcard. Plenty of Daily Mails visible on the train especially in the provinces and on long distance intercity routes. For those reasons I really doubt Virgin have got this right re their customer base and it will cause them a lot of headaches with green ink letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. They will regret it I think.

    A train company has one responsibility: To get its customers from A to B in a timely manner. Hopefully with a seat, and without ripping them off with an incomprehensible fare structure in the process.

    I don't care to know the politics of the train company that gets me from London to Newcastle or Glasgow to Crewe. Nor do I care to have its politics rubbed in my face, any more than I want to hear the opinions of a cup of instant coffee on who to vote for at the next election.

    I don't give a toss what a brand's "values" are if they differ from mine so long as they provide a reasonable service and do not rub said "values" in my face.

    I don't read the Mail, but I understand that six million or so in the country do, and for a brand to essentially do a whopping, eggy fart in those customers' faces by telling them their political opinions are wrongthink is, in my view, a colossal mis-step.

    To be seen to be on the side of a tradition of "there is only one true way and all other points of view are heresy" is to partake, albeit on a lesser scale, in a tradition ranging from the auto-da-fés of the Spanish Inquisition to the book burnings of the 1930s.

    A plurality of opinions, even ones we object to, is to be welcomed in a free and open society. Indeed, we need those opinions to be voiced in order to object to them.

    So long as the Daily Mail hasn't contravened any laws, they are welcome to keep on publishing their opinions. Virgin are, of course, within their rights to stop stocking the paper, but to go about it in the way they have - claiming it is incompatible with their "values" (what values would those be, exactly? considering Branson is mired in sex scandals and tax avoidance himself) - is to insult the intelligence of the five or six million people who read the Mail and tell them that they are wrong and, moreover, that they should be silenced.

    This is not in any way healthy for our democracy. I hate the Mail, I despise its "yellow journalism" but to deny them a voice and to demonise their readers is an affront to liberal values delivered by a company whose own glass house is so large they shouldn't be throwing pebbles let alone stones.

    A pox on these extremist absolutists who believe that their opinion is the only valid one and that all others should be silent. It is them - not the purveyors of second rate news - who are the threat to our democracy.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,649
    Oprah would be the anti-Trump candidate. She will do better I think if Trump stands for re-election.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,436
    MattW said:

    MattW said:


    That's the point. Stuff from that long ago has very little weight.

    Like the Toby Young stuff that says that "x said y when he was 23, therefore he despises z now he is 56".

    Roy Greenslade wrote about it in more detail very well in the G back in 2011 here, with a deeper knowledge than my original Anna Raccoon piece,
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

    Slightly more weight if the current chairman and controlling shareholder is the great grandson of old Hurrah for the Blackshirts himself. We can never know of course, but I'm pretty sure Dacre would slot beautifully into the 1930s Mail.
    Really? Are you happy with the principle that you are evaluated on the basis of your grandparent's opinions?

    I think that is a very peculiar stance.

    You appear to have translated 'slightly more weight' into a principle of evaluation, inadvertently I'm sure.

    I certainly think it's strange for a conservative to think that what has gone before has no bearing on now, particularly in the context of a family business.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,447
    Mr. 100, agree entirely.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,468
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, I know very little about Oprah. If Trump can be President I don't see why Oprah can't.

    Still I can't help being surprised at what makes someone papabile these days. One fine speech? Is that it?

    I have made ca. 100 very fine speeches to a variety of audiences globally (from Australia to the US) over the last 4 years. If fine speech-making is the measure of things and one speech = US Presidential candidate, what does 100 speeches get you? Dictatorette / Dictatrix / Leaderene (?) of the World?

    PS Don't worry. Fat chance.

    PPS Apologies for the badly disguised plug for my business. A girl has gotta eat. And I have an expensive gardening and shoe habit to fund.

    :)

    I think you also need to be a billionaire:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/2020-wealthy-democrats-steyer-winfrey-trump-328187

    (Not to mention a US citizen.)

    Still, that's good news for those who want to enjoy an innocent sprinkle unmolested, I suppose...
    Trump was the first billionaire to be elected President (though JFK was son of a billionaire in today's terms). If it is Trump then Oprah that would be back to back billionaires, which is why Sanders still has a shot as a populist outsider against big money and big business
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,187
    Scott_P said:
    The Minister for Winging It has rather let the cat out of the bag on what the government really thinks about a No Deal Brexit.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,187
    HHemmelig said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Regular rail users are much more middle class than average, surveys have showed that time and time again going all the way back to Dr Beeching. You see the core Daily Mail demographic travelling by train a lot - comfortable, provincial, sensible, often retired and using their senior citizens railcard. Plenty of Daily Mails visible on the train especially in the provinces and on long distance intercity routes. For those reasons I really doubt Virgin have got this right re their customer base and it will cause them a lot of headaches with green ink letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. They will regret it I think.

    The only paper I ever see on the train down to London these days is the Metro.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,758
    Scott_P said:
    I thought they only let the wealthy in.....need to see tax returns Donald, if you aren't a billionaire you ain't coming in.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,649

    Scott_P said:
    The Minister for Winging It has rather let the cat out of the bag on what the government really thinks about a No Deal Brexit.

    Slightly different things. David Davis wants to sue the EU for not giving us everything he wants after we have walked away. To think he has actually written a book on how to negotiate!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,758
    Rory Stewart MP becomes Minister of State at Ministry of Justice.

    How long until he decides this politics lark is a waste of time?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839

    On topic, 10/1 is about right. And about 60% of that uncertainty is whether or not she runs. If she does, much depends on what happens on the other side of the ticket. If she takes on Trump, she wins. But Trump may be brought down in office (unlikely) or in primaries (more likely but still well under 50%).

    If there's a non-Trump GOP candidate, a more conventional Dem politician might be a better bet. But - and this is a big but - what Oprah said and did at the Golden Globes cannot be unsaid or undone. She was a voice for millions (and in a way and on a subject that Hillary could never really be, given Bill's history).

    Is there anyone else that could do that? Bernie, perhaps. But Bernie is old and his politics of niche appeal. Oprah has genuinely lived the American Dream. Daddy didn't set her up in business. In fact, daddy and mummy gave her a rotten start in life.

    If she wants it, her weakest card is her inexperience in politics, coming after Trump has demonstrated the dangers of a non-professional politician. But Oprah is a very very different character to Trump and might be able to assuage fears on that score. We should take the prospect of her becoming the 46th president very seriously.

    I can see the merits of your arguments but 10/1 strikes me as extremely skinny for a person unlikely to run. She has an extremely successful brand and business that has made her fabulously wealthy, almost certainly way wealthier than Trump. Why would she want to risk that by entering partisan politics? I think it is more like 20-30/1 that she will even run. If she did and really went for it she would be a contender.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,758

    HHemmelig said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Regular rail users are much more middle class than average, surveys have showed that time and time again going all the way back to Dr Beeching. You see the core Daily Mail demographic travelling by train a lot - comfortable, provincial, sensible, often retired and using their senior citizens railcard. Plenty of Daily Mails visible on the train especially in the provinces and on long distance intercity routes. For those reasons I really doubt Virgin have got this right re their customer base and it will cause them a lot of headaches with green ink letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. They will regret it I think.

    The only paper I ever see on the train down to London these days is the Metro.

    Loose definition of a newspaper....and of course owned by the Daily Mail group.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    Rory Stewart MP becomes Minister of State at Ministry of Justice.

    How long until he decides this politics lark is a waste of time?

    only so many of the faceless donkeys can be shifted about at any one time. When you have hundreds of mediocrity and old boys/girls network at top what else do you expect , the rats at top of greasy pole are going to hang on for grim death
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839

    Rory Stewart MP becomes Minister of State at Ministry of Justice.

    How long until he decides this politics lark is a waste of time?

    His progress up the greasy pole is proving quite laborious. His past history does not suggest a high boredom threshold.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,434

    Rory Stewart MP becomes Minister of State at Ministry of Justice.

    How long until he decides this politics lark is a waste of time?

    He is certainly rising without trace. There has been nothing to him except a backstory, ever, and perhaps he needs to do something to raise his own profile?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,649

    Scott_P said:
    The Minister for Winging It has rather let the cat out of the bag on what the government really thinks about a No Deal Brexit.

    Still there's something odd about that letter where David Davis wants to sue the EU Commission for implementing Article 50. I know Davis isn't the smartest cookie, but what is he on about, who leaked the letter and why?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,604
    HHemmelig said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Regular rail users are much more middle class than average, surveys have showed that time and time again going all the way back to Dr Beeching. You see the core Daily Mail demographic travelling by train a lot - comfortable, provincial, sensible, often retired and using their senior citizens railcard. Plenty of Daily Mails visible on the train especially in the provinces and on long distance intercity routes. For those reasons I really doubt Virgin have got this right re their customer base and it will cause them a lot of headaches with green ink letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. They will regret it I think.
    Be interesting to see if they go against Branson in revenge.....
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 702
    Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,604



    Don't get caught staring at her tits.

    Highly unlikely in Starkey's case. He's gay.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Rory Stewart MP becomes Minister of State at Ministry of Justice.

    How long until he decides this politics lark is a waste of time?

    He is certainly rising without trace. There has been nothing to him except a backstory, ever, and perhaps he needs to do something to raise his own profile?
    Just another plodder, obviously not in the right gang
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,136

    Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

    Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,465
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Minister for Winging It has rather let the cat out of the bag on what the government really thinks about a No Deal Brexit.

    Still there's something odd about that letter where David Davis wants to sue the EU Commission for implementing Article 50. I know Davis isn't the smartest cookie, but what is he on about, who leaked the letter and why?
    The appointment of Suella Fernandes suggests that DExEU is nothing but an in joke between the Cabinet Office and the European Commission. The only purpose it serves is destroying the reputations of Brexiteers while binding them to the negotiation.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,840
    Ishmael_Z said:

    He is certainly rising without trace. There has been nothing to him except a backstory, ever, and perhaps he needs to do something to raise his own profile?

    Just for you...

  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 702
    JohnO said:

    Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

    Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).
    Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Minister for Winging It has rather let the cat out of the bag on what the government really thinks about a No Deal Brexit.

    Still there's something odd about that letter where David Davis wants to sue the EU Commission for implementing Article 50. I know Davis isn't the smartest cookie, but what is he on about, who leaked the letter and why?
    He is, quite rightly, complaining that they are illegally advocating the favouring of non-UK firms (for example in procurement) whilst we still remain full members. There is absolutely no doubt that he is right that this is discrimination against the UK, which is supposed to be forbidden under EU law. Of course there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of successfully challenging this in the ECJ, but that isn't the point. It's a political/negotiating point, a counter to the EU trying to claim that we can't engage in trade talks with non-EU countries under EU law whilst we remain members (and more importantly, during the transition). Sauce for geese and ganders.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,136

    JohnO said:

    Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

    Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).
    Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a
    Agree. Would like to have seen both promoted.
This discussion has been closed.