As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
I was but as it turns out I was wrong and very disappointed in him as I have said, though he may yet become leader and by the way there is no contest when it comes to Corbyn
Corbyn Derangement Syndrome triggers Whataboutery of the highest order.
Once again, Corbyn isn’t even a Labour MP, never mind Labour leader.
Get over it.
Given that the electorate's only alternative to having had Boris as PM for the last 2.5 years is having had Corbyn as PM for the last 2.5 years, then the comparison is fair.
Not so. The discussion was about Wales’ future vote: Corbo doesn’t come into it.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
But that's other people's choice, not mine. I didn't vote Lib Dem thinking "maybe we will win!" You have to separate out what you think will happen (Boris winning was certain) versus what you want to happen. You vote for what you want to happen. There's no "fallacy" in expressing your political views at the ballot box.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
I was but as it turns out I was wrong and very disappointed in him as I have said, though he may yet become leader and by the way there is no contest when it comes to Corbyn
Johnson, Corbyn and Sunak are just as bad as each other.
Corbyn is in a league of his own by a country mile
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
I'm not querying your intentions - I'm just pointing out the effect of your actions.
If by "effect" you mean the fact Boris is PM... I'd heap all the blame/praise for that onto Conservative voters. I don't get to share in any of the glory or regret that comes from that outcome.
Conservative MPs, rather than voters, when "the most sophisticated electorate in the world" chose as its leader, and thus, immediately, our Prime Minister, a man they must have known was a lazy, shambolic, pathological liar who was susceptible to all the charges they were making against Corbyn.
Yeah, ok, I'll take that correction. He was first made PM by the Conservative party not the wider electorate.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
I was but as it turns out I was wrong and very disappointed in him as I have said, though he may yet become leader and by the way there is no contest when it comes to Corbyn
Johnson, Corbyn and Sunak are just as bad as each other.
Corbyn is in a league of his own by a country mile
Wrong again.
I think that is a minority view but obviously you still have an affection for him
Sunak was given the Chancellor's job specifically because he was considered a lightweight mediocrity, which is basically why all current Cabinet ministers are in place. So it is no surprise that this is exactly what he has turned out to be.
Not really, or are you forgetting that he successfully managed one of the biggest state interventions in the economy in recent history?
Are you forgetting Rishi got the job only after The Saj was fired for not agreeing to let Dominic Cummings' SpAds run the Treasury?
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
It's not a fallacy at all. And the only way to change an undemocratic system, absent armed rebellion, is to signal opposition to it by voting for a third party.
The attempt to co-opt those who oppose FPTP into responsibility for its outcomes is deeply dishonest.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
But that's other people's choice, not mine. I didn't vote Lib Dem thinking "maybe we will win!" You have to separate out what you think will happen (Boris winning was certain) versus what you want to happen. You vote for what you want to happen. There's no "fallacy" in expressing your political views at the ballot box.
None at all. LDs, Monster Raving Loony, that's all good. Indeed it is often my argument that no super safe seat is ever unwinnable for the other side; all it needs is for the party to make an argument that convinces enough people in the constituency. As we have seen recently with the Red Wall.
However, given all that, the overwhelming likelihood in 2019 was that an LD vote would put either Johnson or Corbyn in No.10. And sometimes one has to be practical wrt the consequences of one's vote.
Sunak was given the Chancellor's job specifically because he was considered a lightweight mediocrity, which is basically why all current Cabinet ministers are in place. So it is no surprise that this is exactly what he has turned out to be.
Not really, or are you forgetting that he successfully managed one of the biggest state interventions in the economy in recent history?
Are you forgetting Rishi got the job only after The Saj was fired for not agreeing to let Dominic Cummings' SpAds run the Treasury?
No, I'm just contesting how he was described. He actually managed that quite well. Definitely lacking political nous, however.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
I'm not querying your intentions - I'm just pointing out the effect of your actions.
If by "effect" you mean the fact Boris is PM... I'd heap all the blame/praise for that onto Conservative voters. I don't get to share in any of the glory or regret that comes from that outcome.
No, by "effect" I mean that you washed your hands of the choice of PM and delegated it to other voters.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
It's not a fallacy at all. And the only way to change an undemocratic system, absent armed rebellion, is to signal opposition to it by voting for a third party.
The attempt to co-opt those who oppose FPTP into responsibility for its outcomes is deeply dishonest.
Are we in an undemocratic system? We are in a parliamentary democracy ffs and if you deface your ballot paper, then with probability 1 one of the listed candidates will win.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
And as I detailed on the previous thread, because of Ukraine, there was no window for Sunak to move on the top job.
20/20 hindsight. If he had gone in hard and fast he could have VONCed Boris out and we'd have gone in to the war under PM pro tem Raab. Once you are at that stage no amount of oooh this is no time for self indulgent leadership contests is going to resurrect boris or de-PM Raab
My detail was precisely NOT hindsight. Go read it.
The idea of going into war with PM pro tem Raab is risible.
It may be risible, but if you get the letters in you get an immediate VONC, if that succeeds Pig Dog is out and Raab goes to see Queenie and there you have it. There's no mechanism for reversing any of that on grounds of "risibility."
Gray interim report was 31 January, coulda had fatty out by 3 Feb.
You were NEVER getting the letters in to a backdrop of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You clearly have not talked to any Conservative MPs on the matter, so your views can be dismissed as uninformed twaddle.
There was no such backdrop on 31 January
That's gaslighting right there
You're an idiot. I wouldn't even bother with the effort of gaslighting you.
La dernière maîtresse de milord Byron. Never gonna stop laughing at that one.
we were all here on 31 January. All of us down to the dickless wombat who has given your post a passive aggressive like, and the mood of the nation was not "This is all very serious but we must focus on the fact that russia will be invading Ukraine in 24 days time." It just wasn't.
I have had a long chat with one Con MP and lengthy correspondence with another, so there's another thing you are wrong about.
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
Boris Johnson is poised to nationalise a key part of the electricity network in the biggest overhaul to the UK's energy system in decades. National Grid is to be stripped of its role in running the electricity system more than 30 years after the industry was privatised.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
But that's other people's choice, not mine. I didn't vote Lib Dem thinking "maybe we will win!" You have to separate out what you think will happen (Boris winning was certain) versus what you want to happen. You vote for what you want to happen. There's no "fallacy" in expressing your political views at the ballot box.
The encouragement to guess how other people will vote before deciding how to vote is one of the worst defects of FPTP, and it stifles a broad public debate on politics
There are many things children can't do on their own volition, so we as a society must think they aren't capable of making all decisions themselves.
Indeed. But there is a principle of 40 years standing in Law called Gillick Competence.
Our perception of when someone has sufficient competence to make a decision also changes with time. Sometimes the threshold moves older, sometimes younger.
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
No, I did not, and I have already told you that is not what I am saying. Please stop saying I'm saying something that I have already told you I am not.
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
But that's other people's choice, not mine. I didn't vote Lib Dem thinking "maybe we will win!" You have to separate out what you think will happen (Boris winning was certain) versus what you want to happen. You vote for what you want to happen. There's no "fallacy" in expressing your political views at the ballot box.
The encouragement to guess how other people will vote before deciding how to vote is one of the worst defects of FPTP, and it stifles a broad public debate on politics
Not exclusive to FPTP. See, for example, the French presidential election in progress at the moment.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
But that's other people's choice, not mine. I didn't vote Lib Dem thinking "maybe we will win!" You have to separate out what you think will happen (Boris winning was certain) versus what you want to happen. You vote for what you want to happen. There's no "fallacy" in expressing your political views at the ballot box.
The encouragement to guess how other people will vote before deciding how to vote is one of the worst defects of FPTP, and it stifles a broad public debate on politics
Not exclusive to FPTP. See, for example, the French presidential election in progress at the moment.
Since I didn't suggest the French electoral system as a replacement that is irrelevant.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
What would you have have done differently to RS over the past 2 years?
He has had to deal with the biggest Government spending scheme since WW2 in order to preserve companies and peoples jobs. It was incredible how quickly the schemes were set up, they were run very efficiently and they worked. It was an amazing achievement and the Country remains at full employment.
Now he is looking to recover a tiny percentage of that money he is apparently the worst chancellor ever,
What utter nonsense!!
What would I have done differently? Not increase National Insurance.
Furthermore if there's room for tax cuts (planned for Income Tax) then that should go 100% into reversing the NI hike, not being gifted to those who don't pay NI.
Sunak isn't the worst Chancellor in history, that accolade still belongs to one Gordon Brown, but Sunak has stolen his clothes and is wearing them. NI is raised because its 2p in tax rises but the media says 1p, Brown knew that and Sunak is copying him.
I may have tipped him at 250/1 but I don't want a poundshop Gordon Brown in Downing Street.
So how would you pay for Social Care or would you just keep avoiding the problem?
No avoidance necessary. I don't think its right for the taxpayers to provide for other people's inheritances. If people spend their savings on Care at the end of their life, then that's what they've saved for - a rainy day.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
In the 2010 general election it might have been claimed that votes for the SNP were wasted in most Scottish seats; in the 2015 general election votes for the SNP were remarkably effective.
Who knows? A similar change, an effect of FPTP, might at some point happen in the UK as a whole.
Our electricity costs are going to be £3,943 this year. Last year on a fixed deal we were paying £1,345.
That's a 293% increase with more to come in October! 😬
I can help but laugh that we're being charged 28.455p a unit and being paid 5.57p for the units we export from our PV panels.
I keep on banging on about the seeming lack of concern from government about this. They make the odd noise but they're not doing much. They don't even seem to be bothered about trying to look like they're doing something. Or giving the impression they care.
As MP inboxes fill up with this kind of thing, how much longer will it be before the government actually does something. Or vaguely attempts to look like they might stir themselves and give this issue some serious attention.
This will hit everyone across the political spectrum, of all age groups, everyone regardless of whom they usually vote for. And the government seems only to be wittering on about free markets and Ukraine and hoping it all goes away.
We supposedly voted for sovereignty, for control. For cheaper food and to drop VAT from energy bills. That's working out well.
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
What does any of that have to do with conversion therapy ?
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
But that's other people's choice, not mine. I didn't vote Lib Dem thinking "maybe we will win!" You have to separate out what you think will happen (Boris winning was certain) versus what you want to happen. You vote for what you want to happen. There's no "fallacy" in expressing your political views at the ballot box.
The encouragement to guess how other people will vote before deciding how to vote is one of the worst defects of FPTP, and it stifles a broad public debate on politics
Not exclusive to FPTP. See, for example, the French presidential election in progress at the moment.
Since I didn't suggest the French electoral system as a replacement that is irrelevant.
Well, it was just an example. But I doubt there is an electoral system in existence that doesn't include some element of guessing how other people will vote.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
I was but as it turns out I was wrong and very disappointed in him as I have said, though he may yet become leader and by the way there is no contest when it comes to Corbyn
Johnson, Corbyn and Sunak are just as bad as each other.
Corbyn is in a league of his own by a country mile
Wrong again.
I think that is a minority view but obviously you still have an affection for him
For Corbyn? You serious? I said kick him out of the party when you were still fawning over how good BoJo and Rishi were.
There is absolutely individuals who support Putin or think Russia is better with him and having a Joe Biden, but there is also a significant amount of (often coded) knowing what is really going on.
Meanwhile I've finally been seen by a doctor. Broken rib confirmed but they were checking for a lung complication which appears not to be present.
I'm back and have just seen this on Sky News:
Six hospitals tell public to avoid A&E amid 12-hour waits Six hospitals have issued a joint warning for people to stay away from emergency departments except for in "genuine, life-threatening situations".
The announcement was made after a surge in attendances left some patients waiting for up to 12 hours.
Sympathies over the rib but glad there wasn't a lung penetration, which is much more serious. Rest and write lots of PB contributions!
And yes, our local hospitals here in Surrey report a rising tide of admissions with the usual impact on waiting times. The general acceptance that "Covid is sort of over so life should return to normal" is pervasive but I'm not convinced that the Government has thought through, or prepared the public for, the implications of further increases in waiting times. I'd like to see the next round of boosters pursued with more obvious urgency and publicity.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
What would you have have done differently to RS over the past 2 years?
He has had to deal with the biggest Government spending scheme since WW2 in order to preserve companies and peoples jobs. It was incredible how quickly the schemes were set up, they were run very efficiently and they worked. It was an amazing achievement and the Country remains at full employment.
Now he is looking to recover a tiny percentage of that money he is apparently the worst chancellor ever,
What utter nonsense!!
What would I have done differently? Not increase National Insurance.
Furthermore if there's room for tax cuts (planned for Income Tax) then that should go 100% into reversing the NI hike, not being gifted to those who don't pay NI.
Sunak isn't the worst Chancellor in history, that accolade still belongs to one Gordon Brown, but Sunak has stolen his clothes and is wearing them. NI is raised because its 2p in tax rises but the media says 1p, Brown knew that and Sunak is copying him.
I may have tipped him at 250/1 but I don't want a poundshop Gordon Brown in Downing Street.
So how would you pay for Social Care or would you just keep avoiding the problem?
No avoidance necessary. I don't think its right for the taxpayers to provide for other people's inheritances. If people spend their savings on Care at the end of their life, then that's what they've saved for - a rainy day.
Which is exactly what Theresa May proposed in 2017. Everyone would get to keep £100,000 in assets but all of their assets over £100k, including their home, would be liable for their social care costs, whether residential or domestic.
The public loved the plan so much she lost her majority. Boris ensured it was dumped by the 2019 general election and got a majority of 80
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
What does any of that have to do with conversion therapy ?
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
Of course it is.
Are you suggesting that transgendered people should be banned from converting to their desired sex? Or are you viewing conversion as the other way around perhaps? In which case should people who are not transgendered but think they might be, be denied therapy?
Sexuality and gender are completely different things. No reason at all to say the same solution must work for both.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
What would you have have done differently to RS over the past 2 years?
He has had to deal with the biggest Government spending scheme since WW2 in order to preserve companies and peoples jobs. It was incredible how quickly the schemes were set up, they were run very efficiently and they worked. It was an amazing achievement and the Country remains at full employment.
Now he is looking to recover a tiny percentage of that money he is apparently the worst chancellor ever,
What utter nonsense!!
What would I have done differently? Not increase National Insurance.
Furthermore if there's room for tax cuts (planned for Income Tax) then that should go 100% into reversing the NI hike, not being gifted to those who don't pay NI.
Sunak isn't the worst Chancellor in history, that accolade still belongs to one Gordon Brown, but Sunak has stolen his clothes and is wearing them. NI is raised because its 2p in tax rises but the media says 1p, Brown knew that and Sunak is copying him.
I may have tipped him at 250/1 but I don't want a poundshop Gordon Brown in Downing Street.
So how would you pay for Social Care or would you just keep avoiding the problem?
No avoidance necessary. I don't think its right for the taxpayers to provide for other people's inheritances. If people spend their savings on Care at the end of their life, then that's what they've saved for - a rainy day.
Which is exactly what Theresa May proposed in 2017. Everyone would get to keep £100,000 in assets but all of their assets over £100k would be liable for social care costs, whether residential or domestic.
The public loved the plan so much she lost her majority. Boris ensured it was dumped by the 2019 general election and got a majority of 80
Boris didn't put his plan that he's just whacked National Insurance up for into the manifesto.
He did put no National Insurance Tax Rises into the manifesto.
So if the manifesto that got an 80 seat majority was kept, then I'd be happy. It wasn't.
No need to implement May's plan. Doing nothing would be better than whacking up National Insurance against the manifesto to do this half-arsed plan he's done.
Again the massive expansion of DNEGs businesses, in which they do most of the R&D in the UK, is the fact that it isn't just blockbuster movie companies using their amazing services. Again its Netflix e.g. they did shows like Stranger Things.
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
What does any of that have to do with conversion therapy ?
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
Of course it is.
Are you suggesting that transgendered people should be banned from converting to their desired sex? Or are you viewing conversion as the other way around perhaps? In which case should people who are not transgendered but think they might be, be denied therapy?
Sexuality and gender are completely different things. No reason at all to say the same solution must work for both.
The legislation is about banning coercion, not therapy.
In the government's own words: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy ...I want to reassure those who may have concerns about the impact of this ban on clinicians’ independence as well as on freedom of speech. People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals. It is also vitally important that no person is forced or coerced into conversion therapy, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. This is especially the case for those who are under 18 and where this might result in an irreversible decision. These proposals therefore do not alter the existing clinical regulatory framework or the independence of regulated clinicians working within their professional obligations.
The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone....
Until they decided otherwise. The message is, as I say, clear.
I think Mariupol will make Bucha look like a blip. Not only have the Russians been there for weeks, the Chechen nutters were sent in to do house to house fighting. They have absolutely no respect for an conventions on non-combatants and well known to perpetrate horrific war crimes.
These trenches dug by Russian forces during their invasion of the region were dug in the most irradiated areas of the Chernobyl Radiation Area, see this map of soil Caesium radiation around the disaster area, with the location of the trenches marked. No wonder some got sick. https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1511614133476945920
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
What would you have have done differently to RS over the past 2 years?
He has had to deal with the biggest Government spending scheme since WW2 in order to preserve companies and peoples jobs. It was incredible how quickly the schemes were set up, they were run very efficiently and they worked. It was an amazing achievement and the Country remains at full employment.
Now he is looking to recover a tiny percentage of that money he is apparently the worst chancellor ever,
What utter nonsense!!
What would I have done differently? Not increase National Insurance.
Furthermore if there's room for tax cuts (planned for Income Tax) then that should go 100% into reversing the NI hike, not being gifted to those who don't pay NI.
Sunak isn't the worst Chancellor in history, that accolade still belongs to one Gordon Brown, but Sunak has stolen his clothes and is wearing them. NI is raised because its 2p in tax rises but the media says 1p, Brown knew that and Sunak is copying him.
I may have tipped him at 250/1 but I don't want a poundshop Gordon Brown in Downing Street.
So how would you pay for Social Care or would you just keep avoiding the problem?
No avoidance necessary. I don't think its right for the taxpayers to provide for other people's inheritances. If people spend their savings on Care at the end of their life, then that's what they've saved for - a rainy day.
Which is exactly what Theresa May proposed in 2017. Everyone would get to keep £100,000 in assets but all of their assets over £100k would be liable for social care costs, whether residential or domestic.
The public loved the plan so much she lost her majority. Boris ensured it was dumped by the 2019 general election and got a majority of 80
Boris didn't put his plan that he's just whacked National Insurance up for into the manifesto.
He did put no National Insurance Tax Rises into the manifesto.
So if the manifesto that got an 80 seat majority was kept, then I'd be happy. It wasn't.
No need to implement May's plan. Doing nothing would be better than whacking up National Insurance against the manifesto to do this half-arsed plan he's done.
Social Care and the extra money for the NHS due to Covid had to be paid for somehow, this was the government's solution.
In any case any worker earning under £34,000 will actually pay less in National Insurance under the plans. Only those earning over £34,000 will pay more, with those earning over £100,000 seeing the biggest increase.
So it is mainly a shift in tax burden from wealthy pensioners and their heirs to the highest earners. However in 2019 the former backed the Tories by more than the latter, so that is to be expected. The lowest earners and average earners actually benefit from the tax change https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60996174
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
What does any of that have to do with conversion therapy ?
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
Of course it is.
Are you suggesting that transgendered people should be banned from converting to their desired sex? Or are you viewing conversion as the other way around perhaps? In which case should people who are not transgendered but think they might be, be denied therapy?
Sexuality and gender are completely different things. No reason at all to say the same solution must work for both.
The legislation is about banning coercion, not therapy.
In the government's own words: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy ...I want to reassure those who may have concerns about the impact of this ban on clinicians’ independence as well as on freedom of speech. People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals. It is also vitally important that no person is forced or coerced into conversion therapy, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. This is especially the case for those who are under 18 and where this might result in an irreversible decision. These proposals therefore do not alter the existing clinical regulatory framework or the independence of regulated clinicians working within their professional obligations.
The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone....
Until they decided otherwise. The message is, as I say, clear.
So in English what did the Government say before and what are they saying now?
I read that the carve out was because the ban would have included counselling. But that needn't have been an authoritative source...
Shanghai residents go to their balconies to sing & protest lack of supplies. A drone appears: “Please comply w covid restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.”
These trenches dug by Russian forces during their invasion of the region were dug in the most irradiated areas of the Chernobyl Radiation Area, see this map of soil Caesium radiation around the disaster area, with the location of the trenches marked. No wonder some got sick. https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1511614133476945920
Jeremy Gordon @jrmygrdn Some collected thoughts on what's going on with Russian troops in the #Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and whether they have gotten themselves sick 🧵
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
Netflix has never made a profit. Channel 4 is financially self-sustaining.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
See BBC Three relaunch as a linear channel for insight into their thinking.....
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
Netflix has never made a profit. Channel 4 is financially self-sustaining.
Are you sure? The net income reported was in the billions last year.
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
What does any of that have to do with conversion therapy ?
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
Of course it is.
Are you suggesting that transgendered people should be banned from converting to their desired sex? Or are you viewing conversion as the other way around perhaps? In which case should people who are not transgendered but think they might be, be denied therapy?
Sexuality and gender are completely different things. No reason at all to say the same solution must work for both.
The legislation is about banning coercion, not therapy.
In the government's own words: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy ...I want to reassure those who may have concerns about the impact of this ban on clinicians’ independence as well as on freedom of speech. People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals. It is also vitally important that no person is forced or coerced into conversion therapy, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. This is especially the case for those who are under 18 and where this might result in an irreversible decision. These proposals therefore do not alter the existing clinical regulatory framework or the independence of regulated clinicians working within their professional obligations.
The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone....
Until they decided otherwise. The message is, as I say, clear.
I've liked, as I agree. But there is a degree of subtlety when it comes to transgender issues simply in the need for careful wording to avoid unintended consequences. Young person attends gender identity clinic claiming to want to change gender. Clinician suspects there are other issues at play (e.g. mental health, depression, risk that gender is being latched on to as a problem/solution) and pushes for e.g. mental health service referral. Does that fall under the legislation? It shouldn't and I don't think there was ever an intention that it should, but it could be a bit of a grey area.
One can make a similar argument re heterosexual/homosexual too, of course, but most homosexual young people are not going to be visiting doctors asking for treatment and so unlikely to be referred to a mental health service through that route. The example situation for children with transgender issues is not uncommon, indeed I have a recollection (may be incorrect) that CAMHS referral is even required before gender clinic referral in some areas (Wales?)
I still think conversion therapy should be banned, but the law would need to be drafted carefully, which should of course be perfectly possible.
My meeting was comical this morning. We're back in the office all face to face, but I was in the boardroom on my own on TEAMS because my boss and the engineering director both have covid, and near the end the builders doing my bosses' extension cut through my his internet cable !!
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
Netflix has never made a profit. Channel 4 is financially self-sustaining.
Netflix made a $5bn profit in its net income in 2020.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
This is like the Government deciding to re-organise Public Health England in the middle of a pandemic, which diverted everyone's energies from fighting the pandemic to working out what the re-organisation meant and having to set up new systems for the successor bodies.
We talk about Global Britain and then the Conservative Government seeks to (unconservatively) meddle with our country's success stories.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
See BBC Three relaunch as a linear channel for insight into their thinking.....
I think they "countered" the lack of audience by some waffle about inclusion and accessibility. You would think the BBC could figure out that the tech industry, which is largely what they are competing against now, has regularly seen incumbents go from hero to zero in a matter of years as they denied what was obviously happening.
I see the discussion has turned to the joys of FPTP.
- If you don't vote for one of the Big Two, your vote is "wasted" [1] and others will choose for you. - If you do vote for one of the Big Two, you cement the binary choice and if the Big Two see fit to present a choice of Corbyn or Johnson, well, that's just what you should expect.
Then we spend four or five years complaining about how crap the political leadership of the country is, and how bad were the choices given us, and we go around the cycle again.
[1] Spoiler - if the candidate you voted for wins by more than one vote, or loses, your vote was "wasted" anyway. Had you not turned up, the result would have been the same. You may as well have voted for who you preferred.
Netflix does make a profit, but there is a lot of complex accounting involved in regards to production costs etc etc etc.
But the thing is even if you say well Netflix can't keep it up, you totally avoid the likes of Disney. Disney make Netflix look like a baby elephant. You want to go to war with Disney, they own all the major IPs, the best streaming technology and more money than god.
And of course Amazon, Apple, HBO, yadda yadda yadda. Just saying yeah but but but Netflix is wishful thinking.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
This is like the Government deciding to re-organise Public Health England in the middle of a pandemic, which diverted everyone's energies from fighting the pandemic to working out what the re-organisation meant and having to set up new systems for the successor bodies.
We talk about Global Britain and then the Conservative Government seeks to (unconservatively) meddle with our country's success stories.
Neither BBC or CH4 appear capable of any real innovation. This has been coming for 10 years now. iPlayer tech is crap, 4od tech is crap, no real 4k, no proper HDR, etc etc etc.
I went to a presentation a few years ago from BBC tech people and they spent an hour rabbiting on about the future was things like people capturing footage on their mobiles at gigs and being able to send it live to BBC for them to ingest it, so you can see live footage from Glastonbury from the mosh pit.......
My meeting was comical this morning. We're back in the office all face to face, but I was in the boardroom on my own on TEAMS because my boss and the engineering director both have covid, and near the end the builders doing my bosses' extension cut through my his internet cable !!
Have to admit hybrid working is fun.
Really enjoy seeing the pets of my colleagues.
Seen so many arseholes of cats over the last two years.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
Netflix has never made a profit. Channel 4 is financially self-sustaining.
Are you sure? The net income reported was in the billions last year.
I'm not blaming anyone for voting for a third party - there's an awful lot of the country where it would make sense to do so in tactical terms, and plenty more where doing so is unlikely to affect the local winner anyway.
All I'm doing is challenging the idea that voting for a third party is "voting against both PM candidates" because one of the two will always become PM. Saying that you voted for a third party "to vote against both" seems to me more like trying to convince yourself that you are morally righteous. And maybe you are.
I did not vote in GE 2019, (not even for a minor party after Plaid Cymru joined a bonkers pact with the LibDems & Greens).
If eligible, I would not have voted in the Trump/Clinton, or in Trump/Biden matchups. I would not vote in a Macon/Le Pen head-to-head.
I won't be voting in the Gwynedd Council elections in May. Two delta-minus candidates, even by the abysmal standards of Gwynedd Council.
I don't vote, unless there is competent, intelligent candidate with a reasonable cross-section of views in common with me.
It is defiling the integrity of a democracy to vote for J. Random Nutter, just because his or her opponent is A. Bigger Whack-Job.
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
What does any of that have to do with conversion therapy ?
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
Of course it is.
Are you suggesting that transgendered people should be banned from converting to their desired sex? Or are you viewing conversion as the other way around perhaps? In which case should people who are not transgendered but think they might be, be denied therapy?
Sexuality and gender are completely different things. No reason at all to say the same solution must work for both.
The legislation is about banning coercion, not therapy.
In the government's own words: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy ...I want to reassure those who may have concerns about the impact of this ban on clinicians’ independence as well as on freedom of speech. People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals. It is also vitally important that no person is forced or coerced into conversion therapy, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. This is especially the case for those who are under 18 and where this might result in an irreversible decision. These proposals therefore do not alter the existing clinical regulatory framework or the independence of regulated clinicians working within their professional obligations.
The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone....
Until they decided otherwise. The message is, as I say, clear.
I've liked, as I agree. But there is a degree of subtlety when it comes to transgender issues simply in the need for careful wording to avoid unintended consequences. Young person attends gender identity clinic claiming to want to change gender. Clinician suspects there are other issues at play (e.g. mental health, depression, risk that gender is being latched on to as a problem/solution) and pushes for e.g. mental health service referral. Does that fall under the legislation? It shouldn't and I don't think there was ever an intention that it should, but it could be a bit of a grey area.
One can make a similar argument re heterosexual/homosexual too, of course, but most homosexual young people are not going to be visiting doctors asking for treatment and so unlikely to be referred to a mental health service through that route. The example situation for children with transgender issues is not uncommon, indeed I have a recollection (may be incorrect) that CAMHS referral is even required before gender clinic referral in some areas (Wales?)
I still think conversion therapy should be banned, but the law would need to be drafted carefully, which should of course be perfectly possible.
Sunak wanted to be Brutus insteads he's like those rubbish assassins in one of the Pink Panther films who end up killing each other instead of Inspector Clouseau.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
Proponents of this sale are imagining problems that don't exist.
Channel 4 makes a profit unlike certain major streaming services.
It's created or owns a lot of critically acclaimed and popular programmes such as 'Its a Sin', 'Derry Girls ', 'GBBO', 'Taskmaster'. This doesn't suggest an organisation that is creatively or financially moribund.
Do we really want every single media service to have the same corporate model? In my opinion we're going to have a massive streaming crash soon as there's too many out there to be sustainable. Soon people are going to realise how much they're paying to get the content they want.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
The existing studios in the UK have been bought/block-booked by Netflix, Disney, Amazon. It is very, very difficult to get studio time in the UK because of this. A new large studio is being built outside Reading. Everyone went "Phew!" - then Disney booked the first three years. The old Hammer studios at Bray are having a massive makeover, there are new studios going up at Winnersh, Reading and various other places. It is an incredibly buoyant time - although finding staff is the next big issue.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
This is like the Government deciding to re-organise Public Health England in the middle of a pandemic, which diverted everyone's energies from fighting the pandemic to working out what the re-organisation meant and having to set up new systems for the successor bodies.
We talk about Global Britain and then the Conservative Government seeks to (unconservatively) meddle with our country's success stories.
"a stable foundation" - well that rules out linear broadcasting models then. "a secure financial footing" - well that rules out the licence fee then, which people reasonably object to and are increasingly and rightly refusing to pay.
Glad we're agreed. What they need is to evolve and develop their own funding models secure for the future, not be decrepit and tied to the past.
If the entities instead try to cling to the past they don't deserve to survive the change and they should be allowed to wither and die.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
If everyone had done what I'd done, we'd not have either Boris or Corbyn as PM. It's actually that simple.
You're starting to resemble that Northern Irish joke, when new kid moves into the street and the other kids ask is he's a Protestant or a Catholic. "Neither, I'm a Muslim," he replies. And after a long pause, the other kids ask "yeah, but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"
Ask yourself this, if someone didn't want either Boris or Corbyn as PM, what the hell else COULD they do other than vote for a third party?
They could wash their hands of the choice and vote for a third party, but that would be delegating the choice to other voters.
Since (like everyone else who posts here) you are more informed than the average voter and (like the vast majority of people who post here) you are more intelligent than the average voter, delegating the choice to the average voter seems to me to be a strange thing for you to have done.
Can you actually stop trying to gaslight me, please?
I know what I voted for, which was emphatically "neither of them". That was a considered, deliberate choice and it starts and ends there. My choice wasn't "delegated" to anyone else, I made it myself. What appears on another person's ballot paper is THEIR choice, not mine.
I totally agree. Blaming someone for not voting for either of the 2 main party leaders is tantamount to gaslighting, basically forcing every to vote Starmer/Johnson etc. The last time I looked i didn't live in either Holborn or Uxbridge, therefore I couldn't vote for them anyway. I voted for one of the people on my ballot paper. Sadly the winner was that wet fish "Simon Hart", who I never voted for anyway. Don't blame me for electing him or any other tory!
No it isn't. Gaslighting has a specific meaning which is not the meaning you think it has.
He's certainly trying to gaslight me in the sense that he's trying to tell me what I know to be factually true is actually not, and that a part of that factual truth is my own intentions when I did the thing that I did. There are two strands here: what I did, and what I meant by doing that. What I did was to vote for the Lib Dems. Blandly, simply, uncontroversially that was a vote against all the other parties. What I intended from that was that (amongst other things) my voice would be registered as saying I this country would be run by people other than Boris and Corbyn. Obviously that was a forlorn hope, clearly there was only going to be one winner, but I didn't feel that I should silence my own voice just because I was in a minority.
Anyone who says that I was not opposed to Boris and Corbyn is therefore gaslighting me, telling me things that I know to be true (and that I know better than anybody else on this whole earth) are false.
It would be the same as sending HMRC a cheque for £100 to register your desire that we should all be taxed more.
Well, no. I'd write to my MP to register that opinion. At least they have the power to do that. HMRC don't set tax rates.
Exactly. That's why I used the analogy. It would be making a personal gesture while ignoring the reality of how taxes are raised and the likelihood of any change as a result (probably similarly to writing to your MP about it, that said).
You voted LD because you didn't want either Johnson or Corbyn to win but the reality is that one of them would win because the LDs would not.
It is the "none of the above" fallacy. None of the above means one of the above for certain.
But that's other people's choice, not mine. I didn't vote Lib Dem thinking "maybe we will win!" You have to separate out what you think will happen (Boris winning was certain) versus what you want to happen. You vote for what you want to happen. There's no "fallacy" in expressing your political views at the ballot box.
The encouragement to guess how other people will vote before deciding how to vote is one of the worst defects of FPTP, and it stifles a broad public debate on politics
Not exclusive to FPTP. See, for example, the French presidential election in progress at the moment.
At least in France, voters get the chance to express their first preference initially, knowing that they’ll have another say in the final choice of two.
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
What does any of that have to do with conversion therapy ?
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
Of course it is.
Are you suggesting that transgendered people should be banned from converting to their desired sex? Or are you viewing conversion as the other way around perhaps? In which case should people who are not transgendered but think they might be, be denied therapy?
Sexuality and gender are completely different things. No reason at all to say the same solution must work for both.
The legislation is about banning coercion, not therapy.
In the government's own words: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy ...I want to reassure those who may have concerns about the impact of this ban on clinicians’ independence as well as on freedom of speech. People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals. It is also vitally important that no person is forced or coerced into conversion therapy, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. This is especially the case for those who are under 18 and where this might result in an irreversible decision. These proposals therefore do not alter the existing clinical regulatory framework or the independence of regulated clinicians working within their professional obligations.
The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone....
Until they decided otherwise. The message is, as I say, clear.
I've liked, as I agree. But there is a degree of subtlety when it comes to transgender issues simply in the need for careful wording to avoid unintended consequences. Young person attends gender identity clinic claiming to want to change gender. Clinician suspects there are other issues at play (e.g. mental health, depression, risk that gender is being latched on to as a problem/solution) and pushes for e.g. mental health service referral. Does that fall under the legislation? It shouldn't and I don't think there was ever an intention that it should, but it could be a bit of a grey area.
One can make a similar argument re heterosexual/homosexual too, of course, but most homosexual young people are not going to be visiting doctors asking for treatment and so unlikely to be referred to a mental health service through that route. The example situation for children with transgender issues is not uncommon, indeed I have a recollection (may be incorrect) that CAMHS referral is even required before gender clinic referral in some areas (Wales?)
I still think conversion therapy should be banned, but the law would need to be drafted carefully, which should of course be perfectly possible.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
I see the discussion has turned to the joys of FPTP.
- If you don't vote for one of the Big Two, your vote is "wasted" [1] and others will choose for you. - If you do vote for one of the Big Two, you cement the binary choice and if the Big Two see fit to present a choice of Corbyn or Johnson, well, that's just what you should expect.
Then we spend four or five years complaining about how crap the political leadership of the country is, and how bad were the choices given us, and we go around the cycle again.
[1] Spoiler - if the candidate you voted for wins by more than one vote, or loses, your vote was "wasted" anyway. Had you not turned up, the result would have been the same. You may as well have voted for who you preferred.
Even under PR, UK general elections would have a choice between exactly two potential Prime Ministers. Except depending on the details it might be decided by politicians behind closed doors.
"Change the voting system to fix X" is almost always a red herring. Unless the X you're trying to fix is "I want more Liberal Democrat MPs".
Neither BBC or CH4 appear capable of any real innovation. This has been coming for 10 years now. iPlayer tech is crap, 4od tech is crap, no real 4k, no proper HDR, etc etc etc.
I went to a presentation a few years ago from BBC tech people and they spent an hour rabbiting on about the future was things like people capturing footage on their mobiles at gigs and being able to send it live to BBC for them to ingest it, so you can see live footage from Glastonbury from the mosh pit.......
They can't keep on-screen talent, because of the issues about pay, and they sure as hell can't compete with the tech industry given how much they will pay for good engineers, and any old BBC kudos is basically non-existant for that sector.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
The existing studios in the UK have been bought/block-booked by Netflix, Disney, Amazon. It is very, very difficult to get studio time in the UK because of this. A new large studio is being built outside Reading. Everyone went "Phew!" - then Disney booked the first three years. The old Hammer studios at Bray are having a massive makeover, there are new studios going up at Winnersh, Reading and various other places. It is an incredibly buoyant time - although finding staff is the next big issue.
As I say, it like the revolution we have seen in the Premier League. All those plucky little clubs like Wimbledon, much better resourced teams have come and will smash you unless you radically innovate. The likes of Brighton and Brentford have. Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Nottingham Forest, QPR, etc etc etc didn't keep up and got left behind.
I'm not blaming anyone for voting for a third party - there's an awful lot of the country where it would make sense to do so in tactical terms, and plenty more where doing so is unlikely to affect the local winner anyway.
All I'm doing is challenging the idea that voting for a third party is "voting against both PM candidates" because one of the two will always become PM. Saying that you voted for a third party "to vote against both" seems to me more like trying to convince yourself that you are morally righteous. And maybe you are.
I did not vote in GE 2019, (not even for a minor party after Plaid Cymru joined a bonkers pact with the LibDems & Greens).
If eligible, I would not have voted in the Trump/Clinton, or in Trump/Biden matchups. I would not vote in a Macon/Le Pen head-to-head.
I won't be voting in the Gwynedd Council elections in May. Two delta-minus candidates, even by the abysmal standards of Gwynedd Council.
I don't vote, unless there is competent, intelligent candidate with a reasonable cross-section of views in common with me.
It is defiling the integrity of a democracy to vote for J. Random Nutter, just because his or her opponent is A. Bigger Whack-Job.
And that's fine, and a perfectly legitimate choice. But it's one you make knowing that the winner will be decided by other voters.
Have we discussed Matt Le Tissier proving he's an utter cockwomble?
Matt Le Tissier, arguably Southampton greatest ever player, has resigned from his role as a club ambassador following a series of highly controversial postings on social media.
The club were already aware of complaints about Le Tissier’s very public stance on Covid-19 and this escalated significantly after the former England striker appeared to question whether war reports describing massacres in the town of Bucha, in Ukraine, could be believed.
Captioning it with the word 'This', along with a finger-pointing emoji, he had retweeted a post claiming that the media had lied about weapons of mass destruction, Covid and “the Hunter Biden laptop” and which then said, “But honestly they are telling the truth about Bucha!”
The post was met by outrage on Twitter and later deleted. Atrocities in Bucha have been reported extensively by numerous highly respected broadcast and print media from across the word. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky also made an emotional visit to the war-torn town and later told the United Nations that what he had seen amounted to the "most terrible war crimes".
Although the situation did not reach the point of an ultimatum, it is understood that Southampton have been relaying their concerns to Le Tissier about his social media postings, which had reflected their mounting correspondence with fans over the 53-year-old’s ongoing suitability for an ambassadorial role.
Le Tissier’s decision to step down was accepted by the club on Wednesday morning and he then posted a further series of messages on Twitter. “To all the fans of sfc,” wrote Le Tissier. “I have decided to step aside from my role as an ambassador of SFC. My views are my own and always have been, and it’s important to take this step today to avoid any confusion.
Have we discussed Matt Le Tissier proving he's an utter cockwomble?
He has gone absolutely total David Icke the past few years. No idea if he always been a bit like that or too much YouTube / Twitter. It can't have been too many knocks to the head when playing, as I don't think he ever headed the ball did he?
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
Proponents of this sale are imagining problems that don't exist.
Channel 4 makes a profit unlike certain major streaming services.
It's created or owns a lot of critically acclaimed and popular programmes such as 'Its a Sin', 'Derry Girls ', 'GBBO', 'Taskmaster'. This doesn't suggest an organisation that is creatively or financially moribund.
Do we really want every single media service to have the same corporate model? In my opinion we're going to have a massive streaming crash soon as there's too many out there to be sustainable. Soon people are going to realise how much they're paying to get the content they want.
Amazon Prime just raised their prices £79 => £89 which edges on being noticeable.
Have we discussed Matt Le Tissier proving he's an utter cockwomble?
Matt Le Tissier, arguably Southampton greatest ever player, has resigned from his role as a club ambassador following a series of highly controversial postings on social media.
The club were already aware of complaints about Le Tissier’s very public stance on Covid-19 and this escalated significantly after the former England striker appeared to question whether war reports describing massacres in the town of Bucha, in Ukraine, could be believed.
Captioning it with the word 'This', along with a finger-pointing emoji, he had retweeted a post claiming that the media had lied about weapons of mass destruction, Covid and “the Hunter Biden laptop” and which then said, “But honestly they are telling the truth about Bucha!”
The post was met by outrage on Twitter and later deleted. Atrocities in Bucha have been reported extensively by numerous highly respected broadcast and print media from across the word. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky also made an emotional visit to the war-torn town and later told the United Nations that what he had seen amounted to the "most terrible war crimes".
Although the situation did not reach the point of an ultimatum, it is understood that Southampton have been relaying their concerns to Le Tissier about his social media postings, which had reflected their mounting correspondence with fans over the 53-year-old’s ongoing suitability for an ambassadorial role.
Le Tissier’s decision to step down was accepted by the club on Wednesday morning and he then posted a further series of messages on Twitter. “To all the fans of sfc,” wrote Le Tissier. “I have decided to step aside from my role as an ambassador of SFC. My views are my own and always have been, and it’s important to take this step today to avoid any confusion.
Have we discussed Matt Le Tissier proving he's an utter cockwomble?
He has gone absolutely total David Icke the past few years. No idea if he always been a bit like that or too much YouTube / Twitter. It can't have been too many knocks to the head when playing, as I don't think he ever headed the ball did he?
It's so sad to see.
We saw on it here, once someone gets hooked to the conspiracy theories via Facebook/Twitter/YouTube they believe any old bollocks.
Sunak wanted to be Brutus insteads he's like those rubbish assassins in one of the Pink Panther films who end up killing each other instead of Inspector Clouseau.
Did Rishi want to be Brutus, or did he conclude that the blood stains would besmirch his immaculate hoodie? Let someone else do the dirty work so he could just saunter in to No 10?
If you quoted what he said, it would have given the game away as it's the antithesis of woke:
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
What does any of that have to do with conversion therapy ?
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
Of course it is.
Are you suggesting that transgendered people should be banned from converting to their desired sex? Or are you viewing conversion as the other way around perhaps? In which case should people who are not transgendered but think they might be, be denied therapy?
Sexuality and gender are completely different things. No reason at all to say the same solution must work for both.
The legislation is about banning coercion, not therapy.
In the government's own words: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy ...I want to reassure those who may have concerns about the impact of this ban on clinicians’ independence as well as on freedom of speech. People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals. It is also vitally important that no person is forced or coerced into conversion therapy, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. This is especially the case for those who are under 18 and where this might result in an irreversible decision. These proposals therefore do not alter the existing clinical regulatory framework or the independence of regulated clinicians working within their professional obligations.
The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone....
Until they decided otherwise. The message is, as I say, clear.
I've liked, as I agree. But there is a degree of subtlety when it comes to transgender issues simply in the need for careful wording to avoid unintended consequences. Young person attends gender identity clinic claiming to want to change gender. Clinician suspects there are other issues at play (e.g. mental health, depression, risk that gender is being latched on to as a problem/solution) and pushes for e.g. mental health service referral. Does that fall under the legislation? It shouldn't and I don't think there was ever an intention that it should, but it could be a bit of a grey area.
One can make a similar argument re heterosexual/homosexual too, of course, but most homosexual young people are not going to be visiting doctors asking for treatment and so unlikely to be referred to a mental health service through that route. The example situation for children with transgender issues is not uncommon, indeed I have a recollection (may be incorrect) that CAMHS referral is even required before gender clinic referral in some areas (Wales?)
I still think conversion therapy should be banned, but the law would need to be drafted carefully, which should of course be perfectly possible.
I don't disagree that there are drafting difficulties with such legislation., and I agree with much of what you say. But that's a very long way from saying now that you can ban coercive practices for one thing and not the other, having previously committed to legislating for both simultaneously.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
Netflix has never made a profit. Channel 4 is financially self-sustaining.
Are you sure? The net income reported was in the billions last year.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't.
Not entirely correct, according to the BARB figures I posted a couple of days ago. Apparently linear TV plus iplayer is watched for between 1 hour/day (youngsters) to 6 hours per day (oldies). I suspect that includes a lot of "having it on in the background", but soaps and the 6 o'clock news continue to dominate.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
Oldies will happily watch decent stuff on Netflix. They are far more discerning though - there is a mountain of shite of no interest at all.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't.
Not entirely correct, according to the BARB figures I posted a couple of days ago. Apparently linear TV plus iplayer is watched for between 1 hour/day (youngsters) to 6 hours per day (oldies). I suspect that includes a lot of "having it on in the background", but soaps and the 6 o'clock news continue to dominate.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
In a way, that's the point. To play the money game against US giants is to lose.
Maybe British creatives can only win by continuing to play their game- less product, lower budget, telling stories in an intangibly British way. There's reasonable evidence that works and a sufficiency of Americans will pay to watch it as well.
A bit like the way that lower league football clubs often thrive better without being taken over by a rich benefactor.
Have we discussed Matt Le Tissier proving he's an utter cockwomble?
He has gone absolutely total David Icke the past few years. No idea if he always been a bit like that or too much YouTube / Twitter. It can't have been too many knocks to the head when playing, as I don't think he ever headed the ball did he?
It's so sad to see.
We saw on it here, once someone gets hooked to the conspiracy theories via Facebook/Twitter/YouTube they believe any old bollocks.
We are on friendly terms with a couple who believe the world is six thousand or so years old and look on trump favorably, but are vaccinated. How can we criticize such a nice pair who always "God bless" us when we meet?
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
Wasn't Brexit partly about pushing back the tide of globalisation?
I sense an opportunity for Starmer here. Privatising C4, threats to the BBC, foreign ownership of most of our top football clubs, and so on. Rather than letting all our worthwhile assets end up in the hands of globalised corporate chains, let's defend the family silver. The public owns C4 and the BBC - not the government.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
This is like the Government deciding to re-organise Public Health England in the middle of a pandemic, which diverted everyone's energies from fighting the pandemic to working out what the re-organisation meant and having to set up new systems for the successor bodies.
We talk about Global Britain and then the Conservative Government seeks to (unconservatively) meddle with our country's success stories.
"a stable foundation" - well that rules out linear broadcasting models then. "a secure financial footing" - well that rules out the licence fee then, which people reasonably object to and are increasingly and rightly refusing to pay.
Glad we're agreed. What they need is to evolve and develop their own funding models secure for the future, not be decrepit and tied to the past.
If the entities instead try to cling to the past they don't deserve to survive the change and they should be allowed to wither and die.
Again, Channel 4 is profitable. It had an annual surplus of £74million in 2020. I find it so vexing that people think companies need to strive to make all of the money. Channel 4 makes a profit and it makes or owns programmes people like. Why isn't that enough?
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
Young adults already watch more subscription streaming TV (like Netflix) than ALL broadcast TV and broadcaster streaming (like iPlayer) combined. When you add stuff like YouTube to the mix it's not even close, the ratio is nearer 2:1 already. So traditional broadcasters keep doing the same thing, there can't possibly be a huge problem developing before your eyes.
Comments
I didn't vote Lib Dem thinking "maybe we will win!" You have to separate out what you think will happen (Boris winning was certain) versus what you want to happen. You vote for what you want to happen. There's no "fallacy" in expressing your political views at the ballot box.
BoJo goes woke
And the only way to change an undemocratic system, absent armed rebellion, is to signal opposition to it by voting for a third party.
The attempt to co-opt those who oppose FPTP into responsibility for its outcomes is deeply dishonest.
However, given all that, the overwhelming likelihood in 2019 was that an LD vote would put either Johnson or Corbyn in No.10. And sometimes one has to be practical wrt the consequences of one's vote.
we were all here on 31 January. All of us down to the dickless wombat who has given your post a passive aggressive like, and the mood of the nation was not "This is all very serious but we must focus on the fact that russia will be invading Ukraine in 24 days time." It just wasn't.
I have had a long chat with one Con MP and lengthy correspondence with another, so there's another thing you are wrong about.
"There are complexities and sensitivities when you move from the area of sexuality to the question of gender", says PM Boris Johnson, adding "I don't think it's reasonable" for children to "take decisions on their gender" without a parent's involvement.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally).
If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
@Applicant, you're just wrong, sorry.
Boris Johnson is poised to nationalise a key part of the electricity network in the biggest overhaul to the UK's energy system in decades. National Grid is to be stripped of its role in running the electricity system more than 30 years after the industry was privatised.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/06/national-grid-stripped-responsibility-britains-electricity-network/
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
Who knows? A similar change, an effect of FPTP, might at some point happen in the UK as a whole.
As MP inboxes fill up with this kind of thing, how much longer will it be before the government actually does something. Or vaguely attempts to look like they might stir themselves and give this issue some serious attention.
This will hit everyone across the political spectrum, of all age groups, everyone regardless of whom they usually vote for. And the government seems only to be wittering on about free markets and Ukraine and hoping it all goes away.
We supposedly voted for sovereignty, for control. For cheaper food and to drop VAT from energy bills. That's working out well.
The plain message of the government's decision to legislate in one case and not the other is that it's unacceptable for one, and acceptable for the other.
https://twitter.com/GicAriana/status/1511571664462561283
https://www.youtube.com/c/1420channel
There is absolutely individuals who support Putin or think Russia is better with him and having a Joe Biden, but there is also a significant amount of (often coded) knowing what is really going on.
And yes, our local hospitals here in Surrey report a rising tide of admissions with the usual impact on waiting times. The general acceptance that "Covid is sort of over so life should return to normal" is pervasive but I'm not convinced that the Government has thought through, or prepared the public for, the implications of further increases in waiting times. I'd like to see the next round of boosters pursued with more obvious urgency and publicity.
The public loved the plan so much she lost her majority. Boris ensured it was dumped by the 2019 general election and got a majority of 80
Are you suggesting that transgendered people should be banned from converting to their desired sex? Or are you viewing conversion as the other way around perhaps? In which case should people who are not transgendered but think they might be, be denied therapy?
Sexuality and gender are completely different things. No reason at all to say the same solution must work for both.
Russian mobile crematoria have started operating in Mariupol - city council
The Mariupol City Council says that in this way Russia has started the destruction of evidence of its crimes in Mariupol after the world-wide resonance of the Bucha massacre
https://t.me/mariupolrada/9143
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1511664327836803078
He did put no National Insurance Tax Rises into the manifesto.
So if the manifesto that got an 80 seat majority was kept, then I'd be happy. It wasn't.
No need to implement May's plan. Doing nothing would be better than whacking up National Insurance against the manifesto to do this half-arsed plan he's done.
The Indian behind VFX Oscar for sci-fi epic
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60983131
Again the massive expansion of DNEGs businesses, in which they do most of the R&D in the UK, is the fact that it isn't just blockbuster movie companies using their amazing services. Again its Netflix e.g. they did shows like Stranger Things.
In the government's own words:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy
...I want to reassure those who may have concerns about the impact of this ban on clinicians’ independence as well as on freedom of speech. People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals. It is also vitally important that no person is forced or coerced into conversion therapy, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. This is especially the case for those who are under 18 and where this might result in an irreversible decision. These proposals therefore do not alter the existing clinical regulatory framework or the independence of regulated clinicians working within their professional obligations.
The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone....
Until they decided otherwise.
The message is, as I say, clear.
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1511614133476945920
In any case any worker earning under £34,000 will actually pay less in National Insurance under the plans. Only those earning over £34,000 will pay more, with those earning over £100,000 seeing the biggest increase.
So it is mainly a shift in tax burden from wealthy pensioners and their heirs to the highest earners. However in 2019 the former backed the Tories by more than the latter, so that is to be expected. The lowest earners and average earners actually benefit from the tax change
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60996174
I read that the carve out was because the ban would have included counselling. But that needn't have been an authoritative source...
https://twitter.com/aliceysu/status/1511558828802068481?s=20&t=QuhaZTYSY9UKJcsjGh16hQ
@jrmygrdn
Some collected thoughts on what's going on with Russian troops in the #Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and whether they have gotten themselves sick 🧵
(Spoiler: No)
https://twitter.com/jrmygrdn/status/1509516246852767747
Still testing positive but T line fainter than at the weekend
One can make a similar argument re heterosexual/homosexual too, of course, but most homosexual young people are not going to be visiting doctors asking for treatment and so unlikely to be referred to a mental health service through that route. The example situation for children with transgender issues is not uncommon, indeed I have a recollection (may be incorrect) that CAMHS referral is even required before gender clinic referral in some areas (Wales?)
I still think conversion therapy should be banned, but the law would need to be drafted carefully, which should of course be perfectly possible.
This is like the Government deciding to re-organise Public Health England in the middle of a pandemic, which diverted everyone's energies from fighting the pandemic to working out what the re-organisation meant and having to set up new systems for the successor bodies.
We talk about Global Britain and then the Conservative Government seeks to (unconservatively) meddle with our country's success stories.
- If you don't vote for one of the Big Two, your vote is "wasted" [1] and others will choose for you.
- If you do vote for one of the Big Two, you cement the binary choice and if the Big Two see fit to present a choice of Corbyn or Johnson, well, that's just what you should expect.
Then we spend four or five years complaining about how crap the political leadership of the country is, and how bad were the choices given us, and we go around the cycle again.
[1] Spoiler - if the candidate you voted for wins by more than one vote, or loses, your vote was "wasted" anyway. Had you not turned up, the result would have been the same. You may as well have voted for who you preferred.
But the thing is even if you say well Netflix can't keep it up, you totally avoid the likes of Disney. Disney make Netflix look like a baby elephant. You want to go to war with Disney, they own all the major IPs, the best streaming technology and more money than god.
And of course Amazon, Apple, HBO, yadda yadda yadda. Just saying yeah but but but Netflix is wishful thinking.
I went to a presentation a few years ago from BBC tech people and they spent an hour rabbiting on about the future was things like people capturing footage on their mobiles at gigs and being able to send it live to BBC for them to ingest it, so you can see live footage from Glastonbury from the mosh pit.......
Really enjoy seeing the pets of my colleagues.
Seen so many arseholes of cats over the last two years.
If eligible, I would not have voted in the Trump/Clinton, or in Trump/Biden matchups. I would not vote in a Macon/Le Pen head-to-head.
I won't be voting in the Gwynedd Council elections in May. Two delta-minus candidates, even by the abysmal standards of Gwynedd Council.
I don't vote, unless there is competent, intelligent candidate with a reasonable cross-section of views in common with me.
It is defiling the integrity of a democracy to vote for J. Random Nutter, just because his or her opponent is A. Bigger Whack-Job.
Channel 4 makes a profit unlike certain major streaming services.
It's created or owns a lot of critically acclaimed and popular programmes such as 'Its a Sin', 'Derry Girls ', 'GBBO', 'Taskmaster'. This doesn't suggest an organisation that is creatively or financially moribund.
Do we really want every single media service to have the same corporate model? In my opinion we're going to have a massive streaming crash soon as there's too many out there to be sustainable. Soon people are going to realise how much they're paying to get the content they want.
"a secure financial footing" - well that rules out the licence fee then, which people reasonably object to and are increasingly and rightly refusing to pay.
Glad we're agreed. What they need is to evolve and develop their own funding models secure for the future, not be decrepit and tied to the past.
If the entities instead try to cling to the past they don't deserve to survive the change and they should be allowed to wither and die.
Only a few days but you all know what happens when the PB editorial team go overseas.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
"Change the voting system to fix X" is almost always a red herring. Unless the X you're trying to fix is "I want more Liberal Democrat MPs".
Matt Le Tissier, arguably Southampton greatest ever player, has resigned from his role as a club ambassador following a series of highly controversial postings on social media.
The club were already aware of complaints about Le Tissier’s very public stance on Covid-19 and this escalated significantly after the former England striker appeared to question whether war reports describing massacres in the town of Bucha, in Ukraine, could be believed.
Captioning it with the word 'This', along with a finger-pointing emoji, he had retweeted a post claiming that the media had lied about weapons of mass destruction, Covid and “the Hunter Biden laptop” and which then said, “But honestly they are telling the truth about Bucha!”
The post was met by outrage on Twitter and later deleted. Atrocities in Bucha have been reported extensively by numerous highly respected broadcast and print media from across the word. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky also made an emotional visit to the war-torn town and later told the United Nations that what he had seen amounted to the "most terrible war crimes".
Although the situation did not reach the point of an ultimatum, it is understood that Southampton have been relaying their concerns to Le Tissier about his social media postings, which had reflected their mounting correspondence with fans over the 53-year-old’s ongoing suitability for an ambassadorial role.
Le Tissier’s decision to step down was accepted by the club on Wednesday morning and he then posted a further series of messages on Twitter. “To all the fans of sfc,” wrote Le Tissier. “I have decided to step aside from my role as an ambassador of SFC. My views are my own and always have been, and it’s important to take this step today to avoid any confusion.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/04/06/matt-le-tissier-resigns-southampton-ambassador-sharing-ukraine/
Not an unusual combination.
We saw on it here, once someone gets hooked to the conspiracy theories via Facebook/Twitter/YouTube they believe any old bollocks.
But that's a very long way from saying now that you can ban coercive practices for one thing and not the other, having previously committed to legislating for both simultaneously.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/cash-flow-statement
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Maybe British creatives can only win by continuing to play their game- less product, lower budget, telling stories in an intangibly British way. There's reasonable evidence that works and a sufficiency of Americans will pay to watch it as well.
A bit like the way that lower league football clubs often thrive better without being taken over by a rich benefactor.
I sense an opportunity for Starmer here. Privatising C4, threats to the BBC, foreign ownership of most of our top football clubs, and so on. Rather than letting all our worthwhile assets end up in the hands of globalised corporate chains, let's defend the family silver. The public owns C4 and the BBC - not the government.