Bear in mind that as of the beginning of Conservative-only governments in 2015, it has been legal for special advisors to instruct civil servants to conduct policy directly, without the direct instruction of ministers. In other words, Grant Shapps may well go up to the despatch box to defend a Sabisky policy without having actually ordered it.
Actually more relevant than ever as Boris breaks down the norms around ministerial accountability.
We still don’t have the full details on L’Affaire Arcuri, nor who paid for that villa.
We do urgently need an answer on the villa. 55 year old men with good jobs and money in the bank usually pay for their own holidays. And more generally if Johnson is taking emoluments from 3rd parties, the country has a right to know who they are and what the quid pro quo might be. We can shrug and say it's just "Boris being Boris" but it must be a properly informed shrug.
Surely it won't be long before we're hearing that the female underclass should be impregnated with Cummings's DNA in order to raise the national IQ mean.
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
I wouldn't worry about the BBC, the probability that anything will happen is inversely proportional to the amount of "leaking" of the government's intentions.
Former Culture Sec John Whittingdale is back at the DCMS as a Junior Minister. He does not like Auntie; it must mean something; is this the first time this has happened?
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
I wouldn't worry about the BBC, the probability that anything will happen is inversely proportional to the amount of "leaking" of the government's intentions.
Former Culture Sec John Whittingdale is back at the DCMS as a Junior Minister. He does not like Auntie; it must mean something; is this the first time this has happened?
Whittingdale is a one-man Profumo affair waiting to happen.
Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
Typical Tories , all bent as a three bob bit
How do you know her spouse is a Tory, or are you suggesting she was in on it as well?
Did I mention her name, I merely said Tories are usually bent , they continually prove the norm. I doubt her husband is a Labour or Lib Dem supporter and he must have done something naughty to have been banned for 11 years. Typical Tory trying to deflect from the common dishonesty we see from them, day in and day out. PS: I have never heard of or seen the nonentity in my life till the posts here. Another of Boris's pygmies.
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
It took me about 30 seconds to dig that link out of Google. This one took a little longer.
"One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty"
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
It took me about 30 seconds to dig that link out of Google. This one took a little longer.
"One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty"
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
As unpalatable as it might be, it's already done with abortions of babies with severe disabilities.
A decision for parents in a dreadful situation is rather different from mandating the destruction of babies for no reason other than they failed to make an arbitrary cut.
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
Typical Tories , all bent as a three bob bit
How do you know her spouse is a Tory, or are you suggesting she was in on it as well?
Did I mention her name, I merely said Tories are usually bent , they continually prove the norm. I doubt her husband is a Labour or Lib Dem supporter and he must have done something naughty to have been banned for 11 years. Typical Tory trying to deflect from the common dishonesty we see from them, day in and day out. PS: I have never heard of or seen the nonentity in my life till the posts here. Another of Boris's pygmies.
You actually said they are all bent, rather than usually bent.
If you was wondering about the kind of thing that will scupper you after five years of your government, this is it. Do you really think half-brain-deployed comments about poor people are going to hold up the red wall, if anti-EU forces are no longer running interference for you on social media?
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
SNIP This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
What is the difference wise sage, you don't think these ghastly people would not make it 50-60 years ie same as sterilisation. Get a grip on reality you halfwitted cretin. PS: Be a few on here in the enforcement squads for sure, carrying out their heroes programmes.
I have actually voted Tory in the past. I voted for Cameron and for Major. I have never liked the nastier undertones from the hard left. I am not a natural lefty.
Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
Typical Tories , all bent as a three bob bit
How do you know her spouse is a Tory, or are you suggesting she was in on it as well?
Did I mention her name, I merely said Tories are usually bent , they continually prove the norm. I doubt her husband is a Labour or Lib Dem supporter and he must have done something naughty to have been banned for 11 years. Typical Tory trying to deflect from the common dishonesty we see from them, day in and day out. PS: I have never heard of or seen the nonentity in my life till the posts here. Another of Boris's pygmies.
You actually said they are all bent, rather than usually bent.
I am sure there are a few good Tories but they are thin on the ground. PS: Though it is getting harder to spot them
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
What is the difference wise sage, you don't think these ghastly people would not make it 50-60 years ie same as sterilisation. Get a grip on reality you halfwitted cretin.
You've confused me with @Endillion , @malcolmg . I'm the one who's saying there isn't a difference between "enforced long-term contraception" and "enforced sterilisation".
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Right then. Can you please link to the bit where this person I've never heard of has advocated either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
Contraception isn't sterilisation, or have I missed something?
You have missed that the "onset of puberty" will mean Boris handing out free contraceptives to nine-year-old girls, and 12-year-old girls. My advice: don't google it.
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
What is the difference wise sage, you don't think these ghastly people would not make it 50-60 years ie same as sterilisation. Get a grip on reality you halfwitted cretin.
You've confused me with @Endillion , @malcolmg . I'm the one who's saying there isn't a difference between "enforced long-term contraception" and "enforced sterilisation".
Apologies Viewcode, we are in agreement on how nasty these people are, their sycophants are blind to any criticism of them regardless of how bad they act.@viewcode
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
The irony is that it had been the right, Trump and now Johnson, that had returned to the borrow and spend economics of the late 60s and early 70s.
In the US, Trump is about to run the biggest deficit outside the context of the Great Recession. And current plans in the UK, while more modest, also assume a large late cycle loosening.
As a believer in sound money and small government, I despair.
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote
It took me about 30 seconds to dig that link out of Google. This one took a little longer.
"One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty"
Quite apart from the authoritarian aspect of this proposal, incompatible with the principle of consent and the casual incel type misogyny, it really is quite contemptuous of the working class. I cannot imagine he means to treat nice upper class girls this way, such as his own sisters or nieces, or the daughters of Jacob Rees Mogg. It is an attitude to these young girls reminiscent of a Rochdale taxi driver.
Indeed if we are planning to enforce such a policy, wouldn't we be better off forcibly castrating our notoriously sexually incontinent Prime Minister?
Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
Typical Tories , all bent as a three bob bit
How do you know her spouse is a Tory, or are you suggesting she was in on it as well?
Did I mention her name, I merely said Tories are usually bent , they continually prove the norm. I doubt her husband is a Labour or Lib Dem supporter and he must have done something naughty to have been banned for 11 years. Typical Tory trying to deflect from the common dishonesty we see from them, day in and day out. PS: I have never heard of or seen the nonentity in my life till the posts here. Another of Boris's pygmies.
You actually said they are all bent, rather than usually bent.
I am sure there are a few good Tories but they are thin on the ground. PS: Though it is getting harder to spot them
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
The irony is that it had been the right, Trump and now Johnson, that had returned to the borrow and spend economics of the late 60s and early 70s.
In the US, Trump is about to run the biggest deficit outside the context of the Great Recession. And current plans in the UK, while more modest, also assume a large late cycle loosening.
As a believer in sound money and small government, I despair.
What else can Government's do though? At this stage you would usually be cutting interest rates slightly to ease consumer spending a bit but as rates never recovered to sane levels that isn't an option.
I have actually voted Tory in the past. I voted for Cameron and for Major. I have never liked the nastier undertones from the hard left. I am not a natural lefty.
But by hell, this current Tory govt are filth.
I never thought they could go like this.
I did. FPTP, no written constitution, very few checks and balances, plus the infantile attitude supported by both main parties that a government needs a majority of at least 50-100 and that a hung parliament isn't a 'real' government.
Boris needs to issue a statement explaining what 'long-term contraception' is, how it is medically possible and how it differs from 'sterilization'. He must also clarify whether or not this is to become government policy. If so, what characteristics will determine who is to be inducted into the programme. You can't be fairer than that.
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
The irony is that it had been the right, Trump and now Johnson, that had returned to the borrow and spend economics of the late 60s and early 70s.
In the US, Trump is about to run the biggest deficit outside the context of the Great Recession. And current plans in the UK, while more modest, also assume a large late cycle loosening.
As a believer in sound money and small government, I despair.
Inevitable, given Brexit.
A populist tide, restricting economic growth through the re-erection of trade barriers, has to pursue “borrow and spend”.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard it but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
Even R2 helps maintain the British pop industry. It’s not “high brow”, but has probably done more for British soft power than anything else.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard it but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
Even R2 helps maintain the British pop industry. It’s not “high brow”, but has probably done more for British soft power than anything else.
What does R2 do that Heart or other radio stations can't do and why should we be taxed to pay for R2 just by virtue of watching TV?
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
I wouldn't worry about the BBC, the probability that anything will happen is inversely proportional to the amount of "leaking" of the government's intentions.
Former Culture Sec John Whittingdale is back at the DCMS as a Junior Minister. He does not like Auntie; it must mean something; is this the first time this has happened?
Proving my point. David Cameron also put him at DCMS when he had no intention of doing anything about the Beeb, Cameroonians love the BBC. It's a token gesture to keep conservatives onside rather than a signal they're serious about it.
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
Well, if you're comfortable with characterising the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "not sterilisation", I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you.
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
What will determine who will be eligible for the programme though? Will it be parental income, IQ, place of birth or some other characteristic? We need to know fully how it will work before we can properly assess.
I make no accusations against Sunak personally. But the role of TCI, one other fund and a well known US bank, along with various other funds with close links to RBS, has never been properly or fully told. It does not reflect well on them, the banks involved or the relevant regulatory authorities
Some might consider that some of what went on was potentially criminal.
I could not possibly comment.
Unfortunately for Rishi Sunak if he became party leader Labour would exploit his investment decisions and hedge fund past as the Democrats did with Mitt Romney and his private equity background, he is best sticking to his brief as Chancellor
Contraception isn't sterilisation, or have I missed something?
You have missed that the "onset of puberty" will mean Boris handing out free contraceptives to nine-year-old girls, and 12-year-old girls. My advice: don't google it.
They don't plan to hand it out , they plan to "enforce" it.
Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
Typical Tories , all bent as a three bob bit
How do you know her spouse is a Tory, or are you suggesting she was in on it as well?
Did I mention her name, I merely said Tories are usually bent , they continually prove the norm. I doubt her husband is a Labour or Lib Dem supporter and he must have done something naughty to have been banned for 11 years. Typical Tory trying to deflect from the common dishonesty we see from them, day in and day out. PS: I have never heard of or seen the nonentity in my life till the posts here. Another of Boris's pygmies.
You actually said they are all bent, rather than usually bent.
I am sure there are a few good Tories but they are thin on the ground. PS: Though it is getting harder to spot them
I have actually voted Tory in the past. I voted for Cameron and for Major. I have never liked the nastier undertones from the hard left. I am not a natural lefty.
But by hell, this current Tory govt are filth.
I never thought they could go like this.
I did. FPTP, no written constitution, very few checks and balances, plus the infantile attitude supported by both main parties that a government needs a majority of at least 50-100 and that a hung parliament isn't a 'real' government.
"Now, boy, witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Tory Majority!" [into intercom] "Legislate at will, Prime Minister!"
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
Nice try. That's pb.com's reporting of Red Roar's mischaracterisation of what the bloke actually said. The video it's referencing does not contain the word "sterlisation". Or "eugenics".
Where in his original words does he advocate either eugenics or enforced sterilisation?
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote
It took me about 30 seconds to dig that link out of Google. This one took a little longer.
"One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty"
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
What will determine who will be eligible for the programme though? Will it be parental income, IQ, place of birth or some other characteristic? We need to know fully how it will work before we can properly assess.
Okay, this is getting silly. No-one is seriously suggesting this as government policy. The question seems to be whether or not ever having articulated this view immediately disqualifies him from working in government.
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
Well, if you're comfortable with characterising the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "not sterilisation", I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you.
I'm not generally comfortable with making anything compulsory, but if we're going to start enforcing something medical how about starting with vaccinations?
Contraception (voluntary) and education to prevent unplanned pregnancies are a good thing. Blue skies thinking and saying the unthinkable can also be a good thing too.
If people explored everything any of us had ever said I'm sure they'd find some uncomfortable stuff especially if they're looking to put a bad spin on it and/or take it out of context. Somehow I seriously doubt enforced contraception is going to be government policy.
Contraception isn't sterilisation, or have I missed something?
You have missed that the "onset of puberty" will mean Boris handing out free contraceptives to nine-year-old girls, and 12-year-old girls. My advice: don't google it.
They don't plan to hand it out , they plan to "enforce" it.
Boris needs to issue a statement explaining what 'long-term contraception' is, how it is medically possible and how it differs from 'sterilization'. He must also clarify whether or not this is to become government policy. If so, what characteristics will determine who is to be inducted into the programme. You can't be fairer than that.
Free contraception on the NHS? You can't force anyone to have it, but making it available to all is a good way to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
Well, if you're comfortable with characterising the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "not sterilisation", I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you.
I'm not generally comfortable with making anything compulsory, but if we're going to start enforcing something medical how about starting with vaccinations?
Contraception (voluntary) and education to prevent unplanned pregnancies are a good thing. Blue skies thinking and saying the unthinkable can also be a good thing too.
If people explored everything any of us had ever said I'm sure they'd find some uncomfortable stuff especially if they're looking to put a bad spin on it and/or take it out of context. Somehow I seriously doubt enforced contraception is going to be government policy.
It’s too late anyway. Cummings has already been conceived.
What will determine who will be eligible for the programme though? Will it be parental income, IQ, place of birth or some other characteristic? We need to know fully how it will work before we can properly assess.
The policy would disappear overnight if it involved mandatory vasectomies for men
"Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things,” he says. “Intelligence is largely inherited and it correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness. There is no downside to having IQ except short-sightedness"
So that's a quote from him that references eugenics. It's extremely unclear whether or not he's advocating it, but we can agree to disagree on the precise meaning of what he's trying to say. At the very least I can agree that even mentioning the word is extremely problematic for anyone remotely near front-line politics.
This is progress. Excellent. Now, where does he advocate enforced sterilisation, please?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
Well, if you're comfortable with characterising the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "not sterilisation", I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you.
His point seems to be that we already do similar things via vaccinations. Which is obviously not a perfect direct comparison, but a reasonable argument nonetheless about the relationship between individual freedoms and the rights of society not to have to deal with the consequences of selfish actions.
In addition to anti-vaxxers, there are vocal minorities who argue that (for example) adding folic acid to bread or fluorine to water without their consent is a violation of their human rights. It's certainly not obvious to me where you draw the line, especially given that it's already illegal for anyone under the age of 16 and about three quarters to have a child.
Contraception isn't sterilisation, or have I missed something?
You have missed that the "onset of puberty" will mean Boris handing out free contraceptives to nine-year-old girls, and 12-year-old girls. My advice: don't google it.
They don't plan to hand it out , they plan to "enforce" it.
This must rank as Boris's first tangible betrayal of the 'Brexit Voter'. Okay, they may have appreciated that Brexit would deprive them of some rights - but with it the right to have grandchildren?
This must rank as Boris's first tangible betrayal of the 'Brexit Voter'. Okay, they may have appreciated that Brexit would have deprived them of some rights - but with it the right to have grandchildren?
You don't think you are exaggerating this just a tad?
Okay, this is getting silly. No-one is seriously suggesting this as government policy. The question seems to be whether or not ever having articulated this view immediately disqualifies him from working in government.
Replace the TV licence with a tiny fixed charge on electric bills, problem solved.
That would be a positive step.
Well more and more people watch TV from other electronic devices, but all those devices consume electricity, moving it to electric bills is a sensible step.
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
You do realise the TV Poll Tax is a regressive, er, tax?
Im not defending the license fee, which is regressive, costly to administer, and outdated.
I am defending a BBC that maintains a funding mechanism safely removed from government interference.
Doesn't the current mechanism invite a lot of government interference? If they had to raise their own funds the government would have nothing to do with it.
Okay, this is getting silly. No-one is seriously suggesting this as government policy. The question seems to be whether or not ever having articulated this view immediately disqualifies him from working in government.
Yes it does disqualify him.
Correct. He's a misogynist which in my book puts him in the same league as racists and holocaust deniers.
Dunno, but definite signs of a mid-life crisis. When others get a motorbike or have an affair, the Tories seem to be getting in with all sorts of crazies.
Contraception isn't sterilisation, or have I missed something?
That is a distinction without a difference.
The government is now given the power to decide when you are allowed to procreate. That would be an unprecedented level of control of the bodies of the citizenry.
In the US, there is a constant wringing of hands over the supposed "death committees" that come with socialised medicine, where doctors and bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. This would be the explicit creation of committees of doctors and bureaucrats deciding who would be suitable to breed and who would not.
The problem with "out the box thinking" is that there is a fine line between "the civil service is not exploring all the options", "downright crazy" and "utterly immoral".
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
I'm not advocating it - although the histrionics about it are quite silly, since the mass availability and voluntary use of contraception has already enabled the largest eugenics experiment of all time - but I do approve of the shock value. If the Left wants to have 'literal communists' as its outriders and Marxists as its Shadow Chancellors, then they have declared that the civilized rules of politics no longer apply and they should not be surprised if this leads their political opponents to also think things previously considered unthinkable.
I'd prefer a mutual political disarmament so that we can all go back to the cosy pre-2015 political consensus, but Labour doesn't seem to be up for that.
Replace the TV licence with a tiny fixed charge on electric bills, problem solved.
That would be a positive step.
Well more and more people watch TV from other electronic devices, but all those devices consume electricity, moving it to electric bills is a sensible step.
Oh dear Speedy. You missed the awesome pun involved.
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
You do realise the TV Poll Tax is a regressive, er, tax?
Im not defending the license fee, which is regressive, costly to administer, and outdated.
I am defending a BBC that maintains a funding mechanism safely removed from government interference.
Doesn't the current mechanism invite a lot of government interference? If they had to raise their own funds the government would have nothing to do with it.
A public service broadcaster must retain a claim on the public purse, but also some form of independence.
It is not easy, which is why we are still stuck with the license fee.
Threatening the BBC with evisceration (as briefed in the Times today) is probably not the way to go though.
Okay, this is getting silly. No-one is seriously suggesting this as government policy. The question seems to be whether or not ever having articulated this view immediately disqualifies him from working in government.
Yes it does disqualify him.
Correct. He's a misogynist which in my book puts him in the same league as racists and holocaust deniers.
And almost equally important, it identifies him as a total idiot who should not be within a mile of anything complicated.
You can see why he would appeal to Cummings, who is equally unfit to hold public office. But not to sane people.
Okay, this is getting silly. No-one is seriously suggesting this as government policy. The question seems to be whether or not ever having articulated this view immediately disqualifies him from working in government.
Yes it does disqualify him.
Correct. He's a misogynist which in my book puts him in the same league as racists and holocaust deniers.
But enough about the Labour Party membership . . .
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
This must rank as Boris's first tangible betrayal of the 'Brexit Voter'. Okay, they may have appreciated that Brexit would deprive them of some rights - but with it the right to have grandchildren?
It's an astonishing misstep. The Red Wall will not like it and nor will the Shires.
Some Tories simply want to destroy the BBC. It simply doesn’t fit in with their narrow world view and they’re still upset they didn’t get a Blue Peter badge.
This must rank as Boris's first tangible betrayal of the 'Brexit Voter'. Okay, they may have appreciated that Brexit would deprive them of some rights - but with it the right to have grandchildren?
It's an astonishing misstep. The Red Wall will not like it and nor will the Shires.
You do realise that this isn't actually government policy?
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
I'm not advocating it - although the histrionics about it are quite silly, since the mass availability and voluntary use of contraception has already enabled the largest eugenics experiment of all time - but I do approve of the shock value. If the Left wants to have 'literal communists' as its outriders and Marxists as its Shadow Chancellors, then they have declared that the civilized rules of politics no longer apply and they should not be surprised if this leads their political opponents to also think things previously considered unthinkable.
I'd prefer a mutual political disarmament so that we can all go back to the cosy pre-2015 political consensus, but Labour doesn't seem to be up for that.
I think you're fighting an enemy who doesn't exist. You're angry about the Left tearing up the fiscal compact, when - in fact - it is currently the Right who is taking us back to the economics of the 60s and 70s.
The Right that I have always supported has been the Right of limited government, of competence, of sound money. It is a Right that recognises that when the government interferes, then it usually makes things worse, not better.
The enemy is, and has always been, an overmighty state.
When you allow forced contraception for one group, how do you know that the next government down the road will not turn forced contraception on a group that you support. When you open the door to an expansion of powers of the state, no matter how good your motives, you open the door to those powers being used against you.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Okay, this is getting silly. No-one is seriously suggesting this as government policy. The question seems to be whether or not ever having articulated this view immediately disqualifies him from working in government.
Yes it does disqualify him.
Correct. He's a misogynist which in my book puts him in the same league as racists and holocaust deniers.
But enough about the Labour Party membership . . .
Are you suggesting that she should be considered a chattel and not an individual?
Typical Tories , all bent as a three bob bit
How do you know her spouse is a Tory, or are you suggesting she was in on it as well?
Did I mention her name, I merely said Tories are usually bent , they continually prove the norm. I doubt her husband is a Labour or Lib Dem supporter and he must have done something naughty to have been banned for 11 years. Typical Tory trying to deflect from the common dishonesty we see from them, day in and day out. PS: I have never heard of or seen the nonentity in my life till the posts here. Another of Boris's pygmies.
You actually said they are all bent, rather than usually bent.
This reminds me of that mid-eighties Song from Spitting Image "I've never met a nice South African"
Comments
Haven’t you heard of Caesar’s wife?
Typical Tory trying to deflect from the common dishonesty we see from them, day in and day out.
PS: I have never heard of or seen the nonentity in my life till the posts here. Another of Boris's pygmies.
"One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty"
https://dominiccummings.com/2014/08/19/standin-by-the-window-where-the-light-is-strong-de-extinction-machine-intelligence-the-search-for-extra-solar-life-neural-networks-autonomous-drone-swarms-bombing-parliament-genetics-amp/#comment-432
Do your own digging. I am not your servant.
PS: Be a few on here in the enforcement squads for sure, carrying out their heroes programmes.
But by hell, this current Tory govt are filth.
I never thought they could go like this.
PS: Though it is getting harder to spot them
In the US, Trump is about to run the biggest deficit outside the context of the Great Recession. And current plans in the UK, while more modest, also assume a large late cycle loosening.
As a believer in sound money and small government, I despair.
Indeed if we are planning to enforce such a policy, wouldn't we be better off forcibly castrating our notoriously sexually incontinent Prime Minister?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
recovered to sane levels that isn't an option.
A populist tide, restricting economic growth through the re-erection of trade barriers, has to pursue “borrow and spend”.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
[into intercom]
"Legislate at will, Prime Minister!"
IIRC William Beveridge addressed the Eugenics Society on the same day that Parliament Debated his report...
"Master Race" crap.
The Sabisky affair is the first proper blunter of this government, they should have sacked him already.
Contraception (voluntary) and education to prevent unplanned pregnancies are a good thing. Blue skies thinking and saying the unthinkable can also be a good thing too.
If people explored everything any of us had ever said I'm sure they'd find some uncomfortable stuff especially if they're looking to put a bad spin on it and/or take it out of context. Somehow I seriously doubt enforced contraception is going to be government policy.
In addition to anti-vaxxers, there are vocal minorities who argue that (for example) adding folic acid to bread or fluorine to water without their consent is a violation of their human rights. It's certainly not obvious to me where you draw the line, especially given that it's already illegal for anyone under the age of 16 and about three quarters to have a child.
Do tell....
I am defending a BBC that maintains a funding mechanism safely removed from government interference.
If meaningless diversions are the best you've got youre in bigger shit than I thought
The government is now given the power to decide when you are allowed to procreate. That would be an unprecedented level of control of the bodies of the citizenry.
In the US, there is a constant wringing of hands over the supposed "death committees" that come with socialised medicine, where doctors and bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. This would be the explicit creation of committees of doctors and bureaucrats deciding who would be suitable to breed and who would not.
The problem with "out the box thinking" is that there is a fine line between "the civil service is not exploring all the options", "downright crazy" and "utterly immoral".
I'd prefer a mutual political disarmament so that we can all go back to the cosy pre-2015 political consensus, but Labour doesn't seem to be up for that.
It is not easy, which is why we are still stuck with the license fee.
Threatening the BBC with evisceration (as briefed in the Times today) is probably not the way to go though.
You can see why he would appeal to Cummings, who is equally unfit to hold public office. But not to sane people.
Zombie up?
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
If I choose to have any live TV services I'm compelled to pay for this poll tax or face imprisonment, whether I want BBC services or not.
The Right that I have always supported has been the Right of limited government, of competence, of sound money. It is a Right that recognises that when the government interferes, then it usually makes things worse, not better.
The enemy is, and has always been, an overmighty state.
When you allow forced contraception for one group, how do you know that the next government down the road will not turn forced contraception on a group that you support. When you open the door to an expansion of powers of the state, no matter how good your motives, you open the door to those powers being used against you.