I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
To be fair, South Hampshire is a bit of the North that fell off and got stuck back in the wrong place.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
To be fair, South Hampshire is a bit of the North that fell off and got stuck back in the wrong place.
Stretch betting tip for SPOTY Team of the Year 2022. Keep an eye on Arbroath FC. If and when a market opens they'll be long odds. But they are top of the Championship as the only part-time team. May be useful as a trading bet. Or a long priced winner if they get promoted and do OK.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
She's also - and this shouldn't matter, but it does - easy on the eye.
And she knows it, and uses it
A hint of Thatcher, perhaps
Except Thatcher made it from provincial Lincolnshire to Oxford, a career as a chemist and a tax barrister before becoming an MP.
Rayner did not even do A Levels nor did she have a career of much note before becoming MP. Yes she had a tough backstory but so did many other people
She'll be just as impressive as Thatcher if she ends up PM. More so, in fact. The outcome stats for teen, single mothers are horrendous.
No one cares about your Highers once you have your degree.
Thatcher was a genuine leader of a permanent member of the UN Security Council and G7 power who could go head to head on equal terms if not more so with the Presidents of the USA, Russia, France, China etc.
Rayner is just a female John Prescott, nothing more
Could you ooze a bit more Tory snobbery please.
What has Rayner achieved in her life, outside clambering the ranks of the Labour Party? Because the latter isn't that impressive if Jeremy bloody Corbyn could do it.
He honestly wasn't much of a rank clamberer, and showed little interest in attempting to clamber, so it seemed more like a freak consequence of circumstance that he got to the top. Fought just like anyone else to maintain position though.
That just makes my point even more. Jeremy Corbyn got to the top despite being fairly thick and not trying. So Rayner climbing not quite as high isn't an achievement. The idea "was once poor" is enough to make you a good PM candidate is ridiculous.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
It’s a very fair point that she is an absolutely gold plated self-made woman but that in and of itself doesn’t make her PM material.
I think she's more qualified than an old Etonian with a 1st in PPE.
The equivalent for someone from that background would be astronaut, self made billionaire or something
What about an OE with a 2nd in classics?
More seriously, very few people are up to the job, and that's about a lot of things that are hard to predict and measure.
But apply the "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Do you sleep soundly?" test. On the government benches, Boris fails that test. Sunak passes, so does Hunt; Javid, Truss and Gove maybe... that's about it, I think. For Labour, Starmer would send you to sleep, but that sleep would be peaceful. Nandy and Reeves might pass it, I don't know them well enough. I don't think Rayner does, and I don't see that changing.
On the other hand, pose a different question: "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Does that boost your spirits at times?" Boris PASSES this test (for me, I imagine others differ). Sunak doesn't really, nor do any of the other Tories. Maybe Truss, too early to say
Starmer fails it, I cannot ever see my mood being boosted by the thought, sight or sound of him at Number 10.
Rayner does (hypothetically), just by having done what she's done, getting there from where she was. Nandy, no, Streeting, no, they are all totally boring. Like the Tories. Burnham might faintly cheer me by being quite affable but as the threader makes clear, his path is strewn with serious obstacles
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
She's also - and this shouldn't matter, but it does - easy on the eye.
And she knows it, and uses it
A hint of Thatcher, perhaps
Except Thatcher made it from provincial Lincolnshire to Oxford, a career as a chemist and a tax barrister before becoming an MP.
Rayner did not even do A Levels nor did she have a career of much note before becoming MP. Yes she had a tough backstory but so did many other people
She'll be just as impressive as Thatcher if she ends up PM. More so, in fact. The outcome stats for teen, single mothers are horrendous.
No one cares about your Highers once you have your degree.
Thatcher was a genuine leader of a permanent member of the UN Security Council and G7 power who could go head to head on equal terms if not more so with the Presidents of the USA, Russia, France, China etc.
Rayner is just a female John Prescott, nothing more
I said she could play the Prescott *role* - that is rather different to saying she is just Prescott in a dress, which seems to be your assessment. I do think she has several qualities, but unlike Leon and Foxy I don’t think she is PM material. Stuart from Romford has it right in his post above.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
She's also - and this shouldn't matter, but it does - easy on the eye.
And she knows it, and uses it
A hint of Thatcher, perhaps
Except Thatcher made it from provincial Lincolnshire to Oxford, a career as a chemist and a tax barrister before becoming an MP.
Rayner did not even do A Levels nor did she have a career of much note before becoming MP. Yes she had a tough backstory but so did many other people
Your description makes her sound more impressive not less, since she made it as an MP, and a senior one, without a 'traditional' professional background (admittedly by way of Union links), so saved on a bunch of apparently unnecessary grafting - more efficient.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Gee. Thanks. I staggered out of Birmingham some 35 years ago barely able to say my own name, but somehow have managed to have a career and make my way in the world.
I've heard of you. The guy that got out of Brum. Well done!
I heard the authorities have been after him for years, to prevent others managing the same feat. Sad story, but true.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
To be fair, South Hampshire is a bit of the North that fell off and got stuck back in the wrong place.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
Lloyd George is interesting
Tough beginning but I'd say a shade richer and easier than Rayner?
I didn't know he was born in Manchester, yet Welsh speaking (making him the only British PM not to have English as his first language, which sounds like a brilliant pub quiz question)
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Bevan was just as poor as a kid, probably even poorer. And about as close to being PM?
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
It’s a very fair point that she is an absolutely gold plated self-made woman but that in and of itself doesn’t make her PM material.
I think she's more qualified than an old Etonian with a 1st in PPE.
The equivalent for someone from that background would be astronaut, self made billionaire or something
What about an OE with a 2nd in classics?
More seriously, very few people are up to the job, and that's about a lot of things that are hard to predict and measure.
But apply the "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Do you sleep soundly?" test. On the government benches, Boris fails that test. Sunak passes, so does Hunt; Javid, Truss and Gove maybe... that's about it, I think. For Labour, Starmer would send you to sleep, but that sleep would be peaceful. Nandy and Reeves might pass it, I don't know them well enough. I don't think Rayner does, and I don't see that changing.
On the other hand, pose a different question: "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Does that boost your spirits at times?" Boris PASSES this test (for me, I imagine others differ). Sunak doesn't really, nor do any of the other Tories. Maybe Truss, too early to say
Starmer fails it, I cannot ever see my mood being boosted by the thought, sight or sound of him at Number 10.
Rayner does (hypothetically), just by having done what she's done, getting there from where she was. Nandy, no, Streeting, no, they are all totally boring. Like the Tories. Burnham might faintly cheer me by being quite affable but as the threader makes clear, his path is strewn with serious obstacles
Hmpft!
Fair point, and that's part of the puzzle. When the nation votes next, will the dominant mood be to want inspiration or reassurance?
A really great PM- a Thatcher or a Blair- can do both. But I'm not convinced that there's anyone like that on the horizon. Sunak did at the start of the pandemic, but he seems to regret all the money he wished out then.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
Likely a toss-up between Lloyd George and Ramsey Macdonald.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
It’s a very fair point that she is an absolutely gold plated self-made woman but that in and of itself doesn’t make her PM material.
I think she's more qualified than an old Etonian with a 1st in PPE.
The equivalent for someone from that background would be astronaut, self made billionaire or something
What about an OE with a 2nd in classics?
More seriously, very few people are up to the job, and that's about a lot of things that are hard to predict and measure.
But apply the "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Do you sleep soundly?" test. On the government benches, Boris fails that test. Sunak passes, so does Hunt; Javid, Truss and Gove maybe... that's about it, I think. For Labour, Starmer would send you to sleep, but that sleep would be peaceful. Nandy and Reeves might pass it, I don't know them well enough. I don't think Rayner does, and I don't see that changing.
On the other hand, pose a different question: "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Does that boost your spirits at times?" Boris PASSES this test (for me, I imagine others differ). Sunak doesn't really, nor do any of the other Tories. Maybe Truss, too early to say
Starmer fails it, I cannot ever see my mood being boosted by the thought, sight or sound of him at Number 10.
Rayner does (hypothetically), just by having done what she's done, getting there from where she was. Nandy, no, Streeting, no, they are all totally boring. Like the Tories. Burnham might faintly cheer me by being quite affable but as the threader makes clear, his path is strewn with serious obstacles
Hmpft!
Genuinely, would you vote for Rayner? I find that very surprising if so.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I’d guess Sir John Major - but don’t know?
Definitely Major in recent history. Before him James Callaghan?
"Leonard James Callaghan was born at 38 Funtington Road, Copnor, Portsmouth, England, on 27 March 1912. He took his middle name from his father, James (1877–1921), who was the son of an Irish Catholic father who had fled to England during the Great Irish Famine, and a Jewish mother. Callaghan's father ran away from home in the 1890s to join the Royal Navy; as he was a year too young to enlist, he gave a false date of birth and changed his surname from Garogher to Callaghan, so that his true identity could not be traced. He rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer."
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I think Callaghan wins. His mother was a penniless widow.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
Lloyd George is interesting
Tough beginning but I'd say a shade richer and easier than Rayner?
I didn't know he was born in Manchester, yet Welsh speaking (making him the only British PM not to have English as his first language, which sounds like a brilliant pub quiz question)
Speaking of PM trivia: Who is the only Prime Minister to be born in Wales?
She doesn't strike me as left-wing, any more than Prescott - they're punchy, a different thing. Scumgate damaged her for a lot of voters but she's gradually living it down (not least as I've heard non-committed voters muse during the scandals last month that maybe she was right), and her recent PMQs showing was impressive. Starmer definitely needs her or someone like her to balance his judicious air.
There aren't any really obvious left-wing candidates at the moment - if there was a leadership election tomorrow we'd see a largely centre-left field with attempts to sound more radical than they are (as Starmer did, very successfully).
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I’d guess Sir John Major - but don’t know?
Definitely Major in recent history. Before him James Callaghan?
"Leonard James Callaghan was born at 38 Funtington Road, Copnor, Portsmouth, England, on 27 March 1912. He took his middle name from his father, James (1877–1921), who was the son of an Irish Catholic father who had fled to England during the Great Irish Famine, and a Jewish mother. Callaghan's father ran away from home in the 1890s to join the Royal Navy; as he was a year too young to enlist, he gave a false date of birth and changed his surname from Garogher to Callaghan, so that his true identity could not be traced. He rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer."
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
Likely a toss-up between Lloyd George and Ramsey Macdonald.
One of the main points of Paxman's book 'Political Animals' is how many leaders had lost their father or mother at an early age.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
It’s a very fair point that she is an absolutely gold plated self-made woman but that in and of itself doesn’t make her PM material.
I think she's more qualified than an old Etonian with a 1st in PPE.
The equivalent for someone from that background would be astronaut, self made billionaire or something
What about an OE with a 2nd in classics?
More seriously, very few people are up to the job, and that's about a lot of things that are hard to predict and measure.
But apply the "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Do you sleep soundly?" test. On the government benches, Boris fails that test. Sunak passes, so does Hunt; Javid, Truss and Gove maybe... that's about it, I think. For Labour, Starmer would send you to sleep, but that sleep would be peaceful. Nandy and Reeves might pass it, I don't know them well enough. I don't think Rayner does, and I don't see that changing.
On the other hand, pose a different question: "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Does that boost your spirits at times?" Boris PASSES this test (for me, I imagine others differ). Sunak doesn't really, nor do any of the other Tories. Maybe Truss, too early to say
Starmer fails it, I cannot ever see my mood being boosted by the thought, sight or sound of him at Number 10.
Rayner does (hypothetically), just by having done what she's done, getting there from where she was. Nandy, no, Streeting, no, they are all totally boring. Like the Tories. Burnham might faintly cheer me by being quite affable but as the threader makes clear, his path is strewn with serious obstacles
Hmpft!
Genuinely, would you vote for Rayner? I find that very surprising if so.
Honest answer? YES. Not likely, but YES, I could
I have two daughters, both at state schools (one at a good London comp, one at the same north of Sydney)
On purely selfish grounds, I could vote for Rayner to give them a bit of inspiration
It's not like either party is offering vastly different economic proposals. If the Tories suddenly grow a backbone against Wokeness, that could sway me back to them, easily
And that is it. Eeek. Too much time on PB. G'night
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I think Callaghan wins. His mother was a penniless widow.
Heath is a very close second.
Fascinating.
Believe Callaghan edges out LLG and RMD for the poorest PM as a kid
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I think Callaghan wins. His mother was a penniless widow.
Heath is a very close second.
Fascinating.
Believe Callaghan edges out LLG and RMD for the poorest PM as a kid
Related trivia: Who, according to their mandatory financial disclosure forms, was the last person to become President of the US while not a millionaire (or richer) at the time of their election?
Jimmy Carter. Obama was fairly close though, worth a couple of million in 2008.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I think Callaghan wins. His mother was a penniless widow.
Heath is a very close second.
Fascinating.
Believe Callaghan edges out LLG and RMD for the poorest PM as a kid
Related trivia: Who, according to their mandatory financial disclosure forms, was the last person to become President of the US while not a millionaire (or richer) at the time of their election?
Jimmy Carter. Obama was fairly close though, worth a couple of million in 2008.
And since 1900, probably poorest when elected (in terms of contemporary purchasing power) was Harry Truman.
EDIT - and poorest as a kid, likely toss-up between HST, Ike, Clinton
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I think Callaghan wins. His mother was a penniless widow.
Heath is a very close second.
Fascinating.
Believe Callaghan edges out LLG and RMD for the poorest PM as a kid
Related trivia: Who, according to their mandatory financial disclosure forms, was the last person to become President of the US while not a millionaire (or richer) at the time of their election?
Jimmy Carter. Obama was fairly close though, worth a couple of million in 2008.
I believe the Obamas were still paying off their student loans when he was elected.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
Likely a toss-up between Lloyd George and Ramsey Macdonald.
One of the main points of Paxman's book 'Political Animals' is how many leaders had lost their father or mother at an early age.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I think Callaghan wins. His mother was a penniless widow.
Heath is a very close second.
Fascinating.
Believe Callaghan edges out LLG and RMD for the poorest PM as a kid
Related trivia: Who, according to their mandatory financial disclosure forms, was the last person to become President of the US while not a millionaire (or richer) at the time of their election?
Jimmy Carter. Obama was fairly close though, worth a couple of million in 2008.
I believe the Obamas were still paying off their student loans when he was elected.
Obama made a lot in book royalties before he ran for US Senate.
BTW, worth noting that in case of Jimmy Carter, his money was mainly tied up in the family peanut farm, thus subject to ups-and-downs of agribusiness.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I think Callaghan wins. His mother was a penniless widow.
Heath is a very close second.
Fascinating.
Believe Callaghan edges out LLG and RMD for the poorest PM as a kid
Surely one of the old aristos was in a stupid amount of gambling debt or something?
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I think Callaghan wins. His mother was a penniless widow.
Heath is a very close second.
Fascinating.
Believe Callaghan edges out LLG and RMD for the poorest PM as a kid
Surely one of the old aristos was in a stupid amount of gambling debt or something?
Depends on your definition.
You mean, the kid stiffed his nanny, at least in the fiscal sense?
This is interesting. It is often under appreciated that Trudeau has English as a second language. Those who have the French get a very different impression of what he says. But. Who of current world leaders grew up in hardship? Not easy to think of any. And what does that say more widely?
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
In the same way, people in the far north of England, such as Newcastle, regard the whole of the Midlands and also places like Cheshire as being in the South and they think people from those places talk with southern accents.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
In the same way, people in the far north of England, such as Newcastle, regard the whole of the Midlands and also places like Cheshire as being in the South and they think people from those places talk with southern accents.
When I lived in Louisiana in 1970s, locals jeered at notion that Virginia was a Southern state.
Which was shocking & outrageous to Virginians, who considered the Old Dominion the cradle of the South.
This is interesting. It is often under appreciated that Trudeau has English as a second language. Those who have the French get a very different impression of what he says. But. Who of current world leaders grew up in hardship? Not easy to think of any. And what does that say more widely?
Which comment are you responding to? I can't see anything in this thread about Trudeau.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
It’s a very fair point that she is an absolutely gold plated self-made woman but that in and of itself doesn’t make her PM material.
I think she's more qualified than an old Etonian with a 1st in PPE.
The equivalent for someone from that background would be astronaut, self made billionaire or something
What about an OE with a 2nd in classics?
More seriously, very few people are up to the job, and that's about a lot of things that are hard to predict and measure.
But apply the "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Do you sleep soundly?" test. On the government benches, Boris fails that test. Sunak passes, so does Hunt; Javid, Truss and Gove maybe... that's about it, I think. For Labour, Starmer would send you to sleep, but that sleep would be peaceful. Nandy and Reeves might pass it, I don't know them well enough. I don't think Rayner does, and I don't see that changing.
On the other hand, pose a different question: "Imagine X is Prime Minister. Does that boost your spirits at times?" Boris PASSES this test (for me, I imagine others differ). Sunak doesn't really, nor do any of the other Tories. Maybe Truss, too early to say
Starmer fails it, I cannot ever see my mood being boosted by the thought, sight or sound of him at Number 10.
Rayner does (hypothetically), just by having done what she's done, getting there from where she was. Nandy, no, Streeting, no, they are all totally boring. Like the Tories. Burnham might faintly cheer me by being quite affable but as the threader makes clear, his path is strewn with serious obstacles
Hmpft!
Genuinely, would you vote for Rayner? I find that very surprising if so.
Rayner has some similarities to Johnson and one of those is that she can reach voters that would otherwise be habitually and culturally opposed to her party.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
She's also - and this shouldn't matter, but it does - easy on the eye.
And she knows it, and uses it
A hint of Thatcher, perhaps
Except Thatcher made it from provincial Lincolnshire to Oxford, a career as a chemist and a tax barrister before becoming an MP.
Rayner did not even do A Levels nor did she have a career of much note before becoming MP. Yes she had a tough backstory but so did many other people
Her father was a prosperous local businessman and pillar of the community - Alderman Roberts, I believe he was known as. So she had a teeny, weeny leg up.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
She's also - and this shouldn't matter, but it does - easy on the eye.
And she knows it, and uses it
A hint of Thatcher, perhaps
Except Thatcher made it from provincial Lincolnshire to Oxford, a career as a chemist and a tax barrister before becoming an MP.
Rayner did not even do A Levels nor did she have a career of much note before becoming MP. Yes she had a tough backstory but so did many other people
I do sometimes think you are unnecessarily in awe of your 'betters' HYUFD. They really aren't your betters and qualifications aren't everything. You should be and are equal to all of them. Not really an observation from this post but it reminded me of it, but you do seem to be in awe of some that you shouldn't be based upon school and/or Oxbridge.
He can certainly (and frequently) speak for himself, but HYUFD has strong respect and identification with traditional hierarchies. And when it comes to politics and voting, he is NOT alone.
On the other hand, plenty others disrespect, dislike or distrust the powers-that-be and are motivated politically & electorally accordingly.
One great secret of practical politics, is being able to balance and combine these two elements. Reason for much of the success of FDR, Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan, Blair & Obama.
May I add Harold Wilson to that list? Oxford's youngest ever Don who managed to be homespun Harold from Huddersfield. He wasn't even called Harold.
Although he is namechecked in the Lords' Prayer which probably helped.
Prejudice reporting for education. On the face of it, this seems like insanity and madness. Prejudice is a human emotion. Like jealousy, it is not in itself a bad thing. The significance of it is how it affects your actions. Education can only guide you in trying to manage your emotions.
Trying to remove prejudice, like hate or jealousy is trying to re-engineer the human heart. It is a totalitarian project. It is no suprise that this is at the heart of our education system. 12 years of conservative government have done nothing to stop this type of thinking or action, which seems to be supported by our institutions.
I am not trying to make this about politics, but this is why educated people vote for Trump or Zemmour. It is for a human future, however flawed; against the nightmare of extreme progressivism. Perhaps we have had our revolt, with Brexit; and it has simply failed to change anything.
Australia reporting over 100K cases today. Not helped by Victoria who have just started to include LFTs but without a way to de-duplicate when confirmed by PCR. About 40% of tests are positive.
This is interesting. It is often under appreciated that Trudeau has English as a second language. Those who have the French get a very different impression of what he says. But. Who of current world leaders grew up in hardship? Not easy to think of any. And what does that say more widely?
It says that our democracy is currently being used by the Elite as an effective way to manage discontent from the wider population, rather than as an effective way to involve the whole population in the business of running the country.
Still, all the other ways that the Elite might use to manage discontent are worse.
OT occasional rant about the BBC's junior staff mindlessly copying the US news channels and leading on American domestic stories, in this case the Ahmaud Arbery murder.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Yeah this too. The biggest thing I cut from the article for space but entirely agree. I'm not making a judgement on what Labour should do, but there is a very decent chance the selectorate insists on it.
An excellent header, thanks - there are lots of barriers in Burnham's way. And yes, I think the only thing missing from your header is the burning desire among many Labour members (including me) to have a female leader next. Even Leon thinks this, FFS!
I know it's some time ago, but the last time Burnham stood for Labour leader his campaign was woefully lacking. He has improved a lot, but maybe not enough? Nandy is a better bet, I think - the UK's Jacinda Ardern.
Nandy’s too cuddly. Warm, approachable looks like the sort of person to curl up and have a cut of warm cocoa with. But ultimately will be judged to lack the steel necessary to be PM.
Rayner has work to do - needs to master the arts of subtlety and finesse. But absolutely has potential and is not self evidently a dipstick (Pidcock), a lightweight (Jess) or just irritating (Creasy*)
* I know it’s totally unfair. She should be a good candidate but there just something about Stella Creasy that sets my teeth on edge
Burnham's best chance depends on a Labour defeat at the next general election. As he will not stand for parliament again until the next general election.
That now looks less likely than before. So if Labour does win and Starmer becomes PM the Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves or Shadow Home Secretary may be more likely to succeed him. If Labour dips in the polls again and Starmer is replaced before the next general election as they are already in parliament and the Shadow Cabinet they would also be better placed to replace him.
Having said that Burnham probably has a more natural connection to the redwall than Starmer or any other top tier Labour figure. So if Starmer Labour loses popularity in that crucial area again (it seems to have made big advances back in the redwall in recent months) then he is the man who could reconnect with it. In the meantime he can focus on being Mayor of Greater Manchester, a role that gives him more real power now than Starmer or any of the Labour frontbench have while they remain in opposition
Sure if he runs in the next GE and Labour wins he would go straight into a mid level Cabinet position?
He has the executive experience and a following plus is high profile. Would be odd to exclude him.
That means that he has as good a chance as Reeves to succeed
Rayner is great but not papabile in a civilised country.
She's a woman, so unless she has a sex change operation or the Catholic Church makes some fairly major changes, then I don't think her not being papabile is a big issue.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
You're no Londoner.
London extends northwards to furthest reaches of Hampstead Heath, but does not include Hampstead Garden Suburb or Golders Green.
It's bounded in the South by the Thames, except for a small cut out for the Oval.
In the West, the boundary runs close to the Thames, and very definitely ends at Kew.
To the East, one leaves London somewhere between Aldgate East and Whitchapel tubes.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
I am a big Rayner fan, and she is not short of ambition. Getting better in action on the front bench too, gave Johnson a proper roasting at PMQs.
She's the first person mentioned as Labour leader in decades that I could consider voting for.
I'm not getting over-excited about this, because I have never voted Labour. Indeed I utterly despise the party and all it stands for, and I would rather vote for Vlad Dracul's nastier cousin, but the last time I had these vague weird stirrings was with Blair - "you know, I could vote for him". I never did, but millions like me really did, and Labour won huge majorities
Mainly it is just her identity: white working class single mum with an illiterate mother. Jeez. Well done her. Seriously! Sends a great message to a lot of disenfranchised people, YOU CAN DO IT
Also she seems to have something about her. An air. Dunno. Sass? Maybe nothing. But it is there. I can imagine her talking patriotically (with all the caveats) and I can imagine me nodding along, thinking, Yeah, Ange, go for it
We've had a long, enervating parade of public school Tories. It is time for A Comp Girl
TL:DR; you'd never vote Labour, even if their leader was the woman of your fantasies.
Yep, but I WAS genuinely if slightly tempted by Blair, as I was never tempted by Brown, Smith, Kinnock, Miliband etc, and Blair was your most successful leader
That is my honest admission. Make of it what you will
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
Rayner's not from Brum though. Your confusing he with Jess Philips. Rayner's from Stockport.
Apols, my bad, yes I am. Philips is the fake WWC girl, Rayner is the real deal. A single mum at 16
Rayner has a really impressive backstory, having fought through all that to be where she is
She's also - and this shouldn't matter, but it does - easy on the eye.
And she knows it, and uses it
A hint of Thatcher, perhaps
Except Thatcher made it from provincial Lincolnshire to Oxford, a career as a chemist and a tax barrister before becoming an MP.
Rayner did not even do A Levels nor did she have a career of much note before becoming MP. Yes she had a tough backstory but so did many other people
So you don't think that being top regional official of UK's largest trade union was chopped liver?
Some people might say that it was bigger deal than being a chemist & tax attorney.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I’d guess Sir John Major - but don’t know?
Definitely Major in recent history. Before him James Callaghan?
"Leonard James Callaghan was born at 38 Funtington Road, Copnor, Portsmouth, England, on 27 March 1912. He took his middle name from his father, James (1877–1921), who was the son of an Irish Catholic father who had fled to England during the Great Irish Famine, and a Jewish mother. Callaghan's father ran away from home in the 1890s to join the Royal Navy; as he was a year too young to enlist, he gave a false date of birth and changed his surname from Garogher to Callaghan, so that his true identity could not be traced. He rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer."
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h ‘Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol and a member of the JCVI, told The Telegraph that from this data "you might be able to cautiously conclude that restrictions are not the complete answer to this particular wave".’ 😆
Try not to sound so disappointed, Adam....
I'm sure iSAGE will back him up.
I'm sure iSAGE are still dreaming up restrictions that are 99.9999% of the answer to this particular wave.
(And iSAGE is shit branding for a group of scientists in this Time of Global Warming.....it makes it look like they are being perverse for the sake of it.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
Portsmouth has many characteristics of the north as a deprived post-industrial city
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
You're no Londoner.
London extends northwards to furthest reaches of Hampstead Heath, but does not include Hampstead Garden Suburb or Golders Green.
It's bounded in the South by the Thames, except for a small cut out for the Oval.
In the West, the boundary runs close to the Thames, and very definitely ends at Kew.
To the East, one leaves London somewhere between Aldgate East and Whitchapel tubes.
Isn’t bounded within the Circle Line an easier and more accurate way of judging it?
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
Portsmouth has many characteristics of the north as a deprived post-industrial city
As well as being Britian’s only island city, I believe it has the highest population density, on account of being a city with very little open space.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I’d guess Sir John Major - but don’t know?
Definitely Major in recent history. Before him James Callaghan?
"Leonard James Callaghan was born at 38 Funtington Road, Copnor, Portsmouth, England, on 27 March 1912. He took his middle name from his father, James (1877–1921), who was the son of an Irish Catholic father who had fled to England during the Great Irish Famine, and a Jewish mother. Callaghan's father ran away from home in the 1890s to join the Royal Navy; as he was a year too young to enlist, he gave a false date of birth and changed his surname from Garogher to Callaghan, so that his true identity could not be traced. He rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer."
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
You're no Londoner.
London extends northwards to furthest reaches of Hampstead Heath, but does not include Hampstead Garden Suburb or Golders Green.
It's bounded in the South by the Thames, except for a small cut out for the Oval.
In the West, the boundary runs close to the Thames, and very definitely ends at Kew.
To the East, one leaves London somewhere between Aldgate East and Whitchapel tubes.
Isn’t bounded within the Circle Line an easier and more accurate way of judging it?
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
Lloyd George is interesting
Tough beginning but I'd say a shade richer and easier than Rayner?
I didn't know he was born in Manchester, yet Welsh speaking (making him the only British PM not to have English as his first language, which sounds like a brilliant pub quiz question)
Prejudice reporting for education. On the face of it, this seems like insanity and madness. Prejudice is a human emotion. Like jealousy, it is not in itself a bad thing. The significance of it is how it affects your actions. Education can only guide you in trying to manage your emotions.
Trying to remove prejudice, like hate or jealousy is trying to re-engineer the human heart. It is a totalitarian project. It is no suprise that this is at the heart of our education system. 12 years of conservative government have done nothing to stop this type of thinking or action, which seems to be supported by our institutions.
I am not trying to make this about politics, but this is why educated people vote for Trump or Zemmour. It is for a human future, however flawed; against the nightmare of extreme progressivism. Perhaps we have had our revolt, with Brexit; and it has simply failed to change anything.
That's interesting, partly because I don't understand it all. I agree that we all have prejudices, which I'd define as having opinions about other groups that we can't justify and rationally we suspect are actually groundless. I vaguely suspect that many people in Papua New Guinea are quite primitive, but I recognise that's because I know nothing about PNG except that they used to have cannibals. But prejudice seems to me an unmitigated bad thing, though I agree that it's not actually harmful unless we guide our actions by them (if I had to influence PNG policy I'd take the trouble to understand the place properly). Similarly, jealousy is surely usually understood to mean an unreasonable suspicion of a partner. If they run off with someone, it's natural to feel aggrieved, but is that jealousy?
But you're onto something about revolts. There was a notable drop in anti-immgration polling after Brexit, which is presumably because people felt something was being done to get it under control (possibly that will have changed lately). Some revolts that don't seem to change much lead to demands for bigger revolts (cf. French and Russian revolutions), but shrugging and giving up is a normal human response too.
On Trump, the proportion of highly-educated people who support him is quite low (don't know about Zemmour), and that perhaps reflects the tendency of higher education to weight rational analysis more highly than emotional instinct (and perhaps prejudice). I feel suspicious of myself when I react emotionally to some political development, and that maybe reflects my academic background - you'd just feel silly if you wrote a PhD thesis governed by your gut feelings.
It's a private company pitching its "services" to local councils. So far it has found one sucker client, Cambridgeshire council.
Yes but echoes here of Black Lives Matter, Stonewall, and Stop Funding Hate: everyone rolls their eyes and shrugs it off as a harmless eccentricity, and then it quickly becomes the mainstream.
It seems like a Cambridgeshire County Council initiative which they are trying to roll out more widely.
That’s what Michael Gove famously described as the educational “blob”, accountable to no-one other than themselves, and impervious to changes of government in driving their agenda forwards.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
This is an interesting game/sub-thread: who was the poorest person to become PM?
I’d guess Sir John Major - but don’t know?
Definitely Major in recent history. Before him James Callaghan?
"Leonard James Callaghan was born at 38 Funtington Road, Copnor, Portsmouth, England, on 27 March 1912. He took his middle name from his father, James (1877–1921), who was the son of an Irish Catholic father who had fled to England during the Great Irish Famine, and a Jewish mother. Callaghan's father ran away from home in the 1890s to join the Royal Navy; as he was a year too young to enlist, he gave a false date of birth and changed his surname from Garogher to Callaghan, so that his true identity could not be traced. He rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer."
Mr. Age, perhaps. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again, given the habit political, journalistic, and educational leaders have developed of treating ideologically driven madness as if it's sane (either through fear of censure or blithe complacency). And then you have the old XYers competing in women's sports, as if being transgender rewrites the genetic code in every cell in the body.
Or flinging down statues because, apart from burning books, nothing says an open-minded and intelligent approach to history like mob rule.
Or indulging in the bizarre cultish nonsense of kneeling for a highly dubious cause and being denounced as racist if you don't comply.
[Compliance is also a rather ugly aspect of some hardline stuff in response to COVID-19 too, particularly in Germany].
It seems like a Cambridgeshire County Council initiative which they are trying to roll out more widely.
That’s what Michael Gove famously described as the educational “blob”, accountable to no-one other than themselves, and impervious to changes of government in driving their agenda forwards.
Which is richly ironic given he was the one who most furthered their agenda…without realising it.
It's a private company pitching its "services" to local councils. So far it has found one sucker client, Cambridgeshire council.
Yes but echoes here of Black Lives Matter, Stonewall, and Stop Funding Hate: everyone rolls their eyes and shrugs it off as a harmless eccentricity, and then it quickly becomes the mainstream.
I see the Arbery murderers get a federal trial next month for hate crime, worth 30 years on top of 3 life sentences 2 of which are no parole. Seems a waste of resources.
It's a private company pitching its "services" to local councils. So far it has found one sucker client, Cambridgeshire council.
Yes but echoes here of Black Lives Matter, Stonewall, and Stop Funding Hate: everyone rolls their eyes and shrugs it off as a harmless eccentricity, and then it quickly becomes the mainstream.
There is actually a very significant distinction: this is a for profit entity, taking money from investors with the explicit purpose of making money.
None of the other bodies you mention are explicitly "in it for the money".
Whether that is good or bad is another matter altogether, but it is a very interesting difference.
One final thought: It would be good for the country to be led by a person who has *personally* experienced what it is like to be actually poor
Not just a bit skint, but frantically worrying about all the next bills, can we get through to the end of the month, will we get evicted, etc. This is the lived experience of many many people - and it is scarring and sometimes harrowing (I recommend the memoir Once In A House On Fire for an eloquent glimpse of fairly modern British urban poverty); it looks like Rayner may well have seen that
That would make her unique in British prime ministers (she should become so) since..... fuck knows. Major maybe? But maybe completely unique in being a single mum as well
Bevin nearly was PM. He grew up in absolute poverty.
Was Lloyd George well off in childhood? Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
Lloyd George is interesting
Tough beginning but I'd say a shade richer and easier than Rayner?
I didn't know he was born in Manchester, yet Welsh speaking (making him the only British PM not to have English as his first language, which sounds like a brilliant pub quiz question)
Prejudice reporting for education. On the face of it, this seems like insanity and madness. Prejudice is a human emotion. Like jealousy, it is not in itself a bad thing. The significance of it is how it affects your actions. Education can only guide you in trying to manage your emotions.
Trying to remove prejudice, like hate or jealousy is trying to re-engineer the human heart. It is a totalitarian project. It is no suprise that this is at the heart of our education system. 12 years of conservative government have done nothing to stop this type of thinking or action, which seems to be supported by our institutions.
I am not trying to make this about politics, but this is why educated people vote for Trump or Zemmour. It is for a human future, however flawed; against the nightmare of extreme progressivism. Perhaps we have had our revolt, with Brexit; and it has simply failed to change anything.
That's interesting, partly because I don't understand it all. I agree that we all have prejudices, which I'd define as having opinions about other groups that we can't justify and rationally we suspect are actually groundless. I vaguely suspect that many people in Papua New Guinea are quite primitive, but I recognise that's because I know nothing about PNG except that they used to have cannibals. But prejudice seems to me an unmitigated bad thing, though I agree that it's not actually harmful unless we guide our actions by them (if I had to influence PNG policy I'd take the trouble to understand the place properly). Similarly, jealousy is surely usually understood to mean an unreasonable suspicion of a partner. If they run off with someone, it's natural to feel aggrieved, but is that jealousy?
But you're onto something about revolts. There was a notable drop in anti-immgration polling after Brexit, which is presumably because people felt something was being done to get it under control (possibly that will have changed lately). Some revolts that don't seem to change much lead to demands for bigger revolts (cf. French and Russian revolutions), but shrugging and giving up is a normal human response too.
On Trump, the proportion of highly-educated people who support him is quite low (don't know about Zemmour), and that perhaps reflects the tendency of higher education to weight rational analysis more highly than emotional instinct (and perhaps prejudice). I feel suspicious of myself when I react emotionally to some political development, and that maybe reflects my academic background - you'd just feel silly if you wrote a PhD thesis governed by your gut feelings.
You are overthinking this. Prejudice is a consequence of the limitations of human knowledge. People who are supposedly extremely intelligent and worldly are as susceptible as anyone to prejudice, because there is only so much you can know, and as humans we are driven primarily by instinct not reason. You can see this all the time with 'experts' on twitter descending in to nonsensical tirades against the outgroup, be this Brexitteers, Trump voters, anti-vaxxers etc. It is also much in evidence on PB; even though some people admirably wrestle with and fight these instincts (I would include you in this group) they always eventually seep out.
I don't know the stats about Trump either, but my understanding was that traditionally a high proportion of Republican voters are college graduates (although this is declining as recent graduates are more likely to vote democrat). Zemmour is an intellectual phenomenon (see the film of his recent trip to London, for instance) and his downfall is likely to be his inability to connect with the unwashed masses. But my broader point was that people like myself could vote for something superficially abhorrent like like Trump, because they see it as the less harmful of two forms of madness.
I'd make Rayner favourite right now (but not a huge fave). She is there, she shows talent, she has confidence, she is different
Are you advocating a selection policy based solely on identity?
lol, Yeah
After this succession of inept posh or posh-ish Tories, Cameron, May, Boris, absolutely why not a working class girl from Brum? She's got a sense of humour, she has a bit of sass. She needs to learn some debating skills, judging by PMQs; she is too genial, she needs to employ ruthlessness, but in desperation I might vote for her, if it came to it
She’s from very obviously from Greater Manchester, not Birmingham!
Yes, I apologised earlier
But that said, who cares. Birmingham, Glasgow, Sunderland, Swindon, Plymouth, they're all up north and they're all toilets, whence it is frankly amazing people emerge vaguely literate
Hold on. Weren't your formative years spent in that Northern shithole known to map makers as rural Herefordshire?
I'm pretty sure you were drinking a toast to a return to your roots in the Marches just before xmas.
The trouble is, once you move to London, you go native. Anything north of Epping Forest or west of Heathrow is THE NORTH. Portsmouth is also THE NORTH, it being clearly south of Richmond Park.
You're no Londoner.
London extends northwards to furthest reaches of Hampstead Heath, but does not include Hampstead Garden Suburb or Golders Green.
It's bounded in the South by the Thames, except for a small cut out for the Oval.
In the West, the boundary runs close to the Thames, and very definitely ends at Kew.
To the East, one leaves London somewhere between Aldgate East and Whitchapel tubes.
Only South London is proper London. The stuff north of the river is just for tourists and poshos.
Corvid cases are up in Australia to 115,976 reported today. A new record by quite a lot
Cases in Aus are not quite 'doubling aver 2 days'
8 Jan: 115,976 new cases and 25 new deaths in Australia 7 Jan: 77,699 new cases and 18 new deaths in Australia 6 Jan: 72,121 new cases and 12 new deaths in Australia 5 Jan: 64,453 new cases and 18 new deaths in Australia 4 Jan: 47,695 new cases and 5 new deaths in Australia 3 Jan: 37,030 new cases and 7 new deaths in Australia 2 Jan: 32,216 new cases and 6 new deaths in Australia 1 Jan: 35,208 new cases and 14 new deaths in Australia 31 Dec: 32,807 30 Dec: 21,240 29 Dec: 18,159
Prejudice reporting for education. On the face of it, this seems like insanity and madness. Prejudice is a human emotion. Like jealousy, it is not in itself a bad thing. The significance of it is how it affects your actions. Education can only guide you in trying to manage your emotions.
Trying to remove prejudice, like hate or jealousy is trying to re-engineer the human heart. It is a totalitarian project. It is no suprise that this is at the heart of our education system. 12 years of conservative government have done nothing to stop this type of thinking or action, which seems to be supported by our institutions.
I am not trying to make this about politics, but this is why educated people vote for Trump or Zemmour. It is for a human future, however flawed; against the nightmare of extreme progressivism. Perhaps we have had our revolt, with Brexit; and it has simply failed to change anything.
That's interesting, partly because I don't understand it all. I agree that we all have prejudices, which I'd define as having opinions about other groups that we can't justify and rationally we suspect are actually groundless. I vaguely suspect that many people in Papua New Guinea are quite primitive, but I recognise that's because I know nothing about PNG except that they used to have cannibals. But prejudice seems to me an unmitigated bad thing, though I agree that it's not actually harmful unless we guide our actions by them (if I had to influence PNG policy I'd take the trouble to understand the place properly). Similarly, jealousy is surely usually understood to mean an unreasonable suspicion of a partner. If they run off with someone, it's natural to feel aggrieved, but is that jealousy?
But you're onto something about revolts. There was a notable drop in anti-immgration polling after Brexit, which is presumably because people felt something was being done to get it under control (possibly that will have changed lately). Some revolts that don't seem to change much lead to demands for bigger revolts (cf. French and Russian revolutions), but shrugging and giving up is a normal human response too.
On Trump, the proportion of highly-educated people who support him is quite low (don't know about Zemmour), and that perhaps reflects the tendency of higher education to weight rational analysis more highly than emotional instinct (and perhaps prejudice). I feel suspicious of myself when I react emotionally to some political development, and that maybe reflects my academic background - you'd just feel silly if you wrote a PhD thesis governed by your gut feelings.
You are overthinking this. Prejudice is a consequence of the limitations of human knowledge. People who are supposedly extremely intelligent and worldly are as susceptible as anyone to prejudice, because there is only so much you can know, and as humans we are driven primarily by instinct not reason. You can see this all the time with 'experts' on twitter descending in to nonsensical tirades against the outgroup, be this Brexitteers, Trump voters, anti-vaxxers etc. It is also much in evidence on PB; even though some people admirably wrestle with and fight these instincts (I would include you in this group) they always eventually seep out.
I don't know the stats about Trump either, but my understanding was that traditionally a high proportion of Republican voters are college graduates (although this is declining as recent graduates are more likely to vote democrat). Zemmour is an intellectual phenomenon (see the film of his recent trip to London, for instance) and his downfall is likely to be his inability to connect with the unwashed masses. But my broader point was that people like myself could vote for something superficially abhorrent like like Trump, because they see it as the less harmful of two forms of madness.
That's a very perceptive point.
My argument against it would be a very simple one. There has not actually been a genuinely woke government. Biden isn't really woke. Obama wasn't. Clinton wasn't. The Democrats that have won power have done so because they were centrists, and were able to attract across the political spectrum.
Indeed, the great irony seems to be that the biggest excesses of woke happen in the US private education sector, who are so desperate to prove they are not simply breeding grounds of privilege.
@Charles has seen far more woke at the American school in London, than my kids have in public education in Los Angeles. Now, maybe that will change as my daughter goes to High School next year, but I do wonder the extent to which we're inventing an imaginary enemy.
It's a private company pitching its "services" to local councils. So far it has found one sucker client, Cambridgeshire council.
Yes but echoes here of Black Lives Matter, Stonewall, and Stop Funding Hate: everyone rolls their eyes and shrugs it off as a harmless eccentricity, and then it quickly becomes the mainstream.
There is actually a very significant distinction: this is a for profit entity, taking money from investors with the explicit purpose of making money.
None of the other bodies you mention are explicitly "in it for the money".
Whether that is good or bad is another matter altogether, but it is a very interesting difference.
I would say that, in the case of the first two groups, this is essentially an administrative difference rather than one of any real significance. Stonewall have recently generated a large amount of revenue through public sector contracts which funds lucrative employment. People associated with BLM have become rich, even if the purposes of the organisation (which has nonetheless benefited from enormous corporate donations) are vague.
It's a private company pitching its "services" to local councils. So far it has found one sucker client, Cambridgeshire council.
One of those 'wish I'd thought of that moments'. If the idea takes off, they'll make a killing
Doesn't seem like such a bad thing if it works and is cost effective. Unless you think that prejudice in the education system is a good thing/ unavoidable/ not really happening (I'm not sure I believe any of those personally).
Morning all! As I don't see Starmer going any time soon it feels a little early to be trying to bet on who may succeed him as Labour leader. Burnham *can't* succeed him if SKS goes early anyway, so why punt on him?
Rayner - she could be moulded into PM material. My problem with her and indeed the remaining lunatics in the party is that they speak from a very narrow position - welfare, trade unions - and do so with a very large and aggressive chip on the shoulder. Whilst I don't for a second think their perspective is wrong its simply too narrow to be a winning position.
The "Tory Scum" thing is the denouement of this position - a slogan chanted for self-righteousness. It contains none of the analysis of how to defeat Toryism nor any ideas for ways to transform this wreck of a state.
If she can both outgrow such nonsense *and* - as Prescott did so brilliantly - bring people with her, then she absolutely could lead. And win. But for me it remains a big IF
Yes. I have shared the Chronicle article bemoaning the emptiness of Newcastle at NYE before. There were a few. But many fewer than normal.
Yes, I spotted that. Thank you. But the Scotsman has done some proper investigative work to confirm anecdotal evidence.
It is the blatant bullshitting on PB that is so irksome. Loudmouth know-it-alls pointing the finger and laughing at Scotland and Wales when clearly they haven’t got the faintest clue what they are talking about. The Hogmanay exodus nonsense went on for days and days. Blatant lies.
After all these years you are still surprised Stuart, it is de rigeur.
It's a private company pitching its "services" to local councils. So far it has found one sucker client, Cambridgeshire council.
Yes but echoes here of Black Lives Matter, Stonewall, and Stop Funding Hate: everyone rolls their eyes and shrugs it off as a harmless eccentricity, and then it quickly becomes the mainstream.
There is actually a very significant distinction: this is a for profit entity, taking money from investors with the explicit purpose of making money.
None of the other bodies you mention are explicitly "in it for the money".
Whether that is good or bad is another matter altogether, but it is a very interesting difference.
I would say that, in the case of the first two groups, this is essentially an administrative difference rather than one of any real significance. Stonewall have recently generated a large amount of revenue through public sector contracts which funds lucrative employment. People associated with BLM have become rich, even if the purposes of the organisation (which has nonetheless benefited from enormous corporate donations) are vague.
Stonewall has total assets of a couple of million pounds. If it's operating as a secret "get rich scheme" it's hiding it well.
Prejudice reporting for education. On the face of it, this seems like insanity and madness. Prejudice is a human emotion. Like jealousy, it is not in itself a bad thing. The significance of it is how it affects your actions. Education can only guide you in trying to manage your emotions.
Trying to remove prejudice, like hate or jealousy is trying to re-engineer the human heart. It is a totalitarian project. It is no suprise that this is at the heart of our education system. 12 years of conservative government have done nothing to stop this type of thinking or action, which seems to be supported by our institutions.
I am not trying to make this about politics, but this is why educated people vote for Trump or Zemmour. It is for a human future, however flawed; against the nightmare of extreme progressivism. Perhaps we have had our revolt, with Brexit; and it has simply failed to change anything.
That's interesting, partly because I don't understand it all. I agree that we all have prejudices, which I'd define as having opinions about other groups that we can't justify and rationally we suspect are actually groundless. I vaguely suspect that many people in Papua New Guinea are quite primitive, but I recognise that's because I know nothing about PNG except that they used to have cannibals. But prejudice seems to me an unmitigated bad thing, though I agree that it's not actually harmful unless we guide our actions by them (if I had to influence PNG policy I'd take the trouble to understand the place properly). Similarly, jealousy is surely usually understood to mean an unreasonable suspicion of a partner. If they run off with someone, it's natural to feel aggrieved, but is that jealousy?
But you're onto something about revolts. There was a notable drop in anti-immgration polling after Brexit, which is presumably because people felt something was being done to get it under control (possibly that will have changed lately). Some revolts that don't seem to change much lead to demands for bigger revolts (cf. French and Russian revolutions), but shrugging and giving up is a normal human response too.
On Trump, the proportion of highly-educated people who support him is quite low (don't know about Zemmour), and that perhaps reflects the tendency of higher education to weight rational analysis more highly than emotional instinct (and perhaps prejudice). I feel suspicious of myself when I react emotionally to some political development, and that maybe reflects my academic background - you'd just feel silly if you wrote a PhD thesis governed by your gut feelings.
You are overthinking this. Prejudice is a consequence of the limitations of human knowledge. People who are supposedly extremely intelligent and worldly are as susceptible as anyone to prejudice, because there is only so much you can know, and as humans we are driven primarily by instinct not reason. You can see this all the time with 'experts' on twitter descending in to nonsensical tirades against the outgroup, be this Brexitteers, Trump voters, anti-vaxxers etc. It is also much in evidence on PB; even though some people admirably wrestle with and fight these instincts (I would include you in this group) they always eventually seep out.
I don't know the stats about Trump either, but my understanding was that traditionally a high proportion of Republican voters are college graduates (although this is declining as recent graduates are more likely to vote democrat). Zemmour is an intellectual phenomenon (see the film of his recent trip to London, for instance) and his downfall is likely to be his inability to connect with the unwashed masses. But my broader point was that people like myself could vote for something superficially abhorrent like like Trump, because they see it as the less harmful of two forms of madness.
That's a very perceptive point.
My argument against it would be a very simple one. There has not actually been a genuinely woke government. Biden isn't really woke. Obama wasn't. Clinton wasn't. The Democrats that have won power have done so because they were centrists, and were able to attract across the political spectrum.
Indeed, the great irony seems to be that the biggest excesses of woke happen in the US private education sector, who are so desperate to prove they are not simply breeding grounds of privilege.
@Charles has seen far more woke at the American school in London, than my kids have in public education in Los Angeles. Now, maybe that will change as my daughter goes to High School next year, but I do wonder the extent to which we're inventing an imaginary enemy.
I would say in response that I don't think that there can be a 'woke' government, because 'woke' is too difficult to define. It is ever shifting and almost meaningless as a term. However, Scotland is a possible example. And New Zealand. The influence is pervasive in almost all governments in Western Europe and the Anglosphere, albeit to differing degrees. Some places are doing better than others. I would say that France is less gripped with this than the UK and US; but clearly France has other problems.
Off now to take my son swimming in our municipal swimming pool, built in the late 1970's by an architect friend of mine it always reminds me for some reason of saner times.
I do wonder the extent to which we're inventing an imaginary enemy.
Imaginary enemies have several advantages as an adversary. They don't fight back. They have glaring and obvious weaknesses for you to exploit. They're optimised to rally the largest possible coalition against them, even pissing off many of their natural supporters. It's why the Daleks always lose in Doctor Who.
Comments
Keep an eye on Arbroath FC. If and when a market opens they'll be long odds. But they are top of the Championship as the only part-time team. May be useful as a trading bet. Or a long priced winner if they get promoted and do OK.
Starmer fails it, I cannot ever see my mood being boosted by the thought, sight or sound of him at Number 10.
Rayner does (hypothetically), just by having done what she's done, getting there from where she was. Nandy, no, Streeting, no, they are all totally boring. Like the Tories. Burnham might faintly cheer me by being quite affable but as the threader makes clear, his path is strewn with serious obstacles
Hmpft!
Can't imagine the Majors were wealthy.
Oh wait...
Tough beginning but I'd say a shade richer and easier than Rayner?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lloyd_George
I didn't know he was born in Manchester, yet Welsh speaking (making him the only British PM not to have English as his first language, which sounds like a brilliant pub quiz question)
When the nation votes next, will the dominant mood be to want inspiration or reassurance?
A really great PM- a Thatcher or a Blair- can do both. But I'm not convinced that there's anyone like that on the horizon. Sunak did at the start of the pandemic, but he seems to regret all the money he wished out then.
"Leonard James Callaghan was born at 38 Funtington Road, Copnor, Portsmouth, England, on 27 March 1912. He took his middle name from his father, James (1877–1921), who was the son of an Irish Catholic father who had fled to England during the Great Irish Famine, and a Jewish mother. Callaghan's father ran away from home in the 1890s to join the Royal Navy; as he was a year too young to enlist, he gave a false date of birth and changed his surname from Garogher to Callaghan, so that his true identity could not be traced. He rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Callaghan
Heath is a very close second.
Fascinating.
Julia Gillard. I didn't say PM of this country...
There aren't any really obvious left-wing candidates at the moment - if there was a leadership election tomorrow we'd see a largely centre-left field with attempts to sound more radical than they are (as Starmer did, very successfully).
I have two daughters, both at state schools (one at a good London comp, one at the same north of Sydney)
On purely selfish grounds, I could vote for Rayner to give them a bit of inspiration
It's not like either party is offering vastly different economic proposals. If the Tories suddenly grow a backbone against Wokeness, that could sway me back to them, easily
And that is it. Eeek. Too much time on PB. G'night
Jimmy Carter. Obama was fairly close though, worth a couple of million in 2008.
EDIT - and poorest as a kid, likely toss-up between HST, Ike, Clinton
BTW, worth noting that in case of Jimmy Carter, his money was mainly tied up in the family peanut farm, thus subject to ups-and-downs of agribusiness.
Depends on your definition.
But. Who of current world leaders grew up in hardship?
Not easy to think of any.
And what does that say more widely?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ce6lsy9IxY
Which was shocking & outrageous to Virginians, who considered the Old Dominion the cradle of the South.
https://youtu.be/ilhJvFngWcY
Prejudice reporting for education.
On the face of it, this seems like insanity and madness. Prejudice is a human emotion. Like jealousy, it is not in itself a bad thing. The significance of it is how it affects your actions. Education can only guide you in trying to manage your emotions.
Trying to remove prejudice, like hate or jealousy is trying to re-engineer the human heart. It is a totalitarian project.
It is no suprise that this is at the heart of our education system. 12 years of conservative government have done nothing to stop this type of thinking or action, which seems to be supported by our institutions.
I am not trying to make this about politics, but this is why educated people vote for Trump or Zemmour. It is for a human future, however flawed; against the nightmare of extreme progressivism.
Perhaps we have had our revolt, with Brexit; and it has simply failed to change anything.
Mr. Age, is that an official education thing?
However, a somewhat more hopeful morrow, cricket-wise, than some we have had!
And Good Morning one and all!
Not quite sure about Rayner. Yet!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-08/victoria-covid-cases-hopitalisation-death-pcr-rat-testing/100745386
One might think that almost 2 years into the pandemic and with many other countries to look at that they might have figured this out by now!
Still, all the other ways that the Elite might use to manage discontent are worse.
Rayner has work to do - needs to master the arts of subtlety and finesse. But absolutely has potential and is not self evidently a dipstick (Pidcock), a lightweight (Jess) or just irritating (Creasy*)
* I know it’s totally unfair. She should be a good candidate but there just something about Stella Creasy that sets my teeth on edge
He has the executive experience and a following plus is high profile. Would be odd to exclude him.
That means that he has as good a chance as Reeves to succeed
London extends northwards to furthest reaches of Hampstead Heath, but does not include Hampstead Garden Suburb or Golders Green.
It's bounded in the South by the Thames, except for a small cut out for the Oval.
In the West, the boundary runs close to the Thames, and very definitely ends at Kew.
To the East, one leaves London somewhere between Aldgate East and Whitchapel tubes.
This means England only has to hang on for two sessions - and maybe a little less. 1.6 is not ungenerous in these circumstances. The draw is a buy.
But you're onto something about revolts. There was a notable drop in anti-immgration polling after Brexit, which is presumably because people felt something was being done to get it under control (possibly that will have changed lately). Some revolts that don't seem to change much lead to demands for bigger revolts (cf. French and Russian revolutions), but shrugging and giving up is a normal human response too.
On Trump, the proportion of highly-educated people who support him is quite low (don't know about Zemmour), and that perhaps reflects the tendency of higher education to weight rational analysis more highly than emotional instinct (and perhaps prejudice). I feel suspicious of myself when I react emotionally to some political development, and that maybe reflects my academic background - you'd just feel silly if you wrote a PhD thesis governed by your gut feelings.
So will BoZo leave office owing more money to more people than his hero?
Or flinging down statues because, apart from burning books, nothing says an open-minded and intelligent approach to history like mob rule.
Or indulging in the bizarre cultish nonsense of kneeling for a highly dubious cause and being denounced as racist if you don't comply.
[Compliance is also a rather ugly aspect of some hardline stuff in response to COVID-19 too, particularly in Germany].
/endramble
Another sign of the pandemic? More deaths but also better-paid jobs driving parcels.
None of the other bodies you mention are explicitly "in it for the money".
Whether that is good or bad is another matter altogether, but it is a very interesting difference.
I don't know the stats about Trump either, but my understanding was that traditionally a high proportion of Republican voters are college graduates (although this is declining as recent graduates are more likely to vote democrat). Zemmour is an intellectual phenomenon (see the film of his recent trip to London, for instance) and his downfall is likely to be his inability to connect with the unwashed masses. But my broader point was that people like myself could vote for something superficially abhorrent like like Trump, because they see it as the less harmful of two forms of madness.
Corvid cases are up in Australia to 115,976 reported today. A new record by quite a lot
Cases in Aus are not quite 'doubling aver 2 days'
8 Jan: 115,976 new cases and 25 new deaths in Australia
7 Jan: 77,699 new cases and 18 new deaths in Australia
6 Jan: 72,121 new cases and 12 new deaths in Australia
5 Jan: 64,453 new cases and 18 new deaths in Australia
4 Jan: 47,695 new cases and 5 new deaths in Australia
3 Jan: 37,030 new cases and 7 new deaths in Australia
2 Jan: 32,216 new cases and 6 new deaths in Australia
1 Jan: 35,208 new cases and 14 new deaths in Australia
31 Dec: 32,807
30 Dec: 21,240
29 Dec: 18,159
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/
My argument against it would be a very simple one. There has not actually been a genuinely woke government. Biden isn't really woke. Obama wasn't. Clinton wasn't. The Democrats that have won power have done so because they were centrists, and were able to attract across the political spectrum.
Indeed, the great irony seems to be that the biggest excesses of woke happen in the US private education sector, who are so desperate to prove they are not simply breeding grounds of privilege.
@Charles has seen far more woke at the American school in London, than my kids have in public education in Los Angeles. Now, maybe that will change as my daughter goes to High School next year, but I do wonder the extent to which we're inventing an imaginary enemy.
No 10 drinks may have broken lockdown rules, says PM's ex-aide Dominic Cummings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59913081
Rayner - she could be moulded into PM material. My problem with her and indeed the remaining lunatics in the party is that they speak from a very narrow position - welfare, trade unions - and do so with a very large and aggressive chip on the shoulder. Whilst I don't for a second think their perspective is wrong its simply too narrow to be a winning position.
The "Tory Scum" thing is the denouement of this position - a slogan chanted for self-righteousness. It contains none of the analysis of how to defeat Toryism nor any ideas for ways to transform this wreck of a state.
If she can both outgrow such nonsense *and* - as Prescott did so brilliantly - bring people with her, then she absolutely could lead. And win. But for me it remains a big IF
Off now to take my son swimming in our municipal swimming pool, built in the late 1970's by an architect friend of mine it always reminds me for some reason of saner times.