Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
It is good to want to uplift people, but sometimes you can't. All you can really do is offer assistance and cooperation in their own decision to improve their life.
There was a horrific and funny (if you like graveyard humour)story about the Nazi attempts to deal with social misfits - who were just as precedent then as today.
They actually started from the premise of “saving” Aryans. So they tried all kinds of programs to rehabilitate alcoholics, support problem families etc. all surprisingly liberal and modern, really…
The story went downhill from there. And ended up where you’d expect a Nazi social program to end up.
The Nazis were quite good at some things. The above st
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
That's a pretty shocking statement.
If a family member came round to my house and started causing trouble, the police might get involved, but there's virtually no chance my neighbours complaints would get me thrown out of a house I own.
When was the last time you were in a situation where you could have been hit in the face by a tire iron? Someone in the situation he's described is much more likely to be a victim of violence.
Is there no world in which his mum was given more support as a heroin user when she was pregnant, or as a new mum?
It may be that random luck pushes one person closer to the edge than another, but there are plenty of ways that a society can help make sure the edge is just that bit further away.
If the person is set on reaching that edge, they will do so. Others should, as I've said, be there to help that guy turn it around when he is ready to do so, but it has to start with him, and the starting point is his own belief that it can get just a little better, and easier, than it is today.
I'm fascinated to know where the original comment was going, Ken.
I thought someone might be.
The Nazi emphasis on the healthy body, even on bodily perfection, was a good thing imo, which they completely ruined, and effectively abolished from polite discourse, by misidentifying the cause of it as racial, when it was environmental, and within that, primarily nutritional. And when the Nazis got something wrong, boy did they get it wrong.
Jesus Christ.
Do you have a perfect body, LuckyGuy? And if not, why not?
Unbelievable.
I'd have been wheeled into the gas chamber - no doubt.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
It is good to want to uplift people, but sometimes you can't. All you can really do is offer assistance and cooperation in their own decision to improve their life.
There was a horrific and funny (if you like graveyard humour)story about the Nazi attempts to deal with social misfits - who were just as precedent then as today.
They actually started from the premise of “saving” Aryans. So they tried all kinds of programs to rehabilitate alcoholics, support problem families etc. all surprisingly liberal and modern, really…
The story went downhill from there. And ended up where you’d expect a Nazi social program to end up.
The Nazis were quite good at some things. The above st
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
That's a pretty shocking statement.
If a family member came round to my house and started causing trouble, the police might get involved, but there's virtually no chance my neighbours complaints would get me thrown out of a house I own.
When was the last time you were in a situation where you could have been hit in the face by a tire iron? Someone in the situation he's described is much more likely to be a victim of violence.
Is there no world in which his mum was given more support as a heroin user when she was pregnant, or as a new mum?
It may be that random luck pushes one person closer to the edge than another, but there are plenty of ways that a society can help make sure the edge is just that bit further away.
If the person is set on reaching that edge, they will do so. Others should, as I've said, be there to help that guy turn it around when he is ready to do so, but it has to start with him, and the starting point is his own belief that it can get just a little better, and easier, than it is today.
I'm fascinated to know where the original comment was going, Ken.
I thought someone might be.
The Nazi emphasis on the healthy body, even on bodily perfection, was a good thing imo, which they completely ruined, and effectively abolished from polite discourse, by misidentifying the cause of it as racial, when it was environmental, and within that, primarily nutritional. And when the Nazis got something wrong, boy did they get it wrong.
Jesus Christ.
Do you have a perfect body, LuckyGuy? And if not, why not?
Unbelievable.
I'd have been wheeled into the gas chamber - no doubt.
I find the notion that we should strive for bodily perfection at best narcisstic and at worst deeply sinister.
I genuinely think none of the candidates are any good.
I don’t think you are an entirely unbiased observer though. I like TT, but it maybe because I once knew his uncle, and he seems decent.
If you think none of this lot are no good, is there any conservative that you rate?
As a Labour member with similar views on this shitshow as CHB: Robert Halfon, Alok Sharma, Simon Hoare, Bob Neill and (because of his ability to direct the shitshow) Graham Brady. There are others I don’t know enough about to seriously comment but seem ok. Not sure any would be amazing PMs tbh.
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos. Penny is inept, I think. Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
The fact she has Gove supporting her helps me think that she could be quite good.
I think I'd prefer Tugendhat overall still, but Badenoch would be my second choice. Mordaunt and Sunak level pegging, and then Truss a very distant fifth.
But we have avoided the really awful candidates already.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
It is good to want to uplift people, but sometimes you can't. All you can really do is offer assistance and cooperation in their own decision to improve their life.
There was a horrific and funny (if you like graveyard humour)story about the Nazi attempts to deal with social misfits - who were just as precedent then as today.
They actually started from the premise of “saving” Aryans. So they tried all kinds of programs to rehabilitate alcoholics, support problem families etc. all surprisingly liberal and modern, really…
The story went downhill from there. And ended up where you’d expect a Nazi social program to end up.
The Nazis were quite good at some things. The above st
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
That's a pretty shocking statement.
If a family member came round to my house and started causing trouble, the police might get involved, but there's virtually no chance my neighbours complaints would get me thrown out of a house I own.
When was the last time you were in a situation where you could have been hit in the face by a tire iron? Someone in the situation he's described is much more likely to be a victim of violence.
Is there no world in which his mum was given more support as a heroin user when she was pregnant, or as a new mum?
It may be that random luck pushes one person closer to the edge than another, but there are plenty of ways that a society can help make sure the edge is just that bit further away.
If the person is set on reaching that edge, they will do so. Others should, as I've said, be there to help that guy turn it around when he is ready to do so, but it has to start with him, and the starting point is his own belief that it can get just a little better, and easier, than it is today.
I'm fascinated to know where the original comment was going, Ken.
I thought someone might be.
The Nazi emphasis on the healthy body, even on bodily perfection, was a good thing imo, which they completely ruined, and effectively abolished from polite discourse, by misidentifying the cause of it as racial, when it was environmental, and within that, primarily nutritional. And when the Nazis got something wrong, boy did they get it wrong.
Jesus Christ.
Do you have a perfect body, LuckyGuy? And if not, why not?
Unbelievable.
I'd have been wheeled into the gas chamber - no doubt.
Case in point of what I mean.
And no, I don't have the perfect body, but physical perfection should be seen merely as an outward sign of perfect health, which is something we all deserve, whatever our startinf point. And that is a good aspiration. And I don't mean a westernised view of perfection being applied universally, I mean good diets creating healthy individuals of all races and colours.
I genuinely think none of the candidates are any good.
CHB in ‘Tory MPs are generally crap and Johnson wouldn’t promote those few who were any good’ shocker….
Anyone who was any good got kicked out in 2019 by the clown....
Rory would put this lot to shame. Can we have him back as PM please
I have a lot of time for Rory Stewart, but the number one requirement for being a successful politician is to convince others to support you, and he wasn't much good with that away from PB.com.
That is a bit unfair. He won both TV debates in the 2019 leadership election despite being one of the most junior candidates. In the last yougov polling with the general public before he was knocked out he was ranked second behind Johnson, albeit only on 7% as 46% went for no-one or don't know.
Rory Stewart was good at taking his tie off during the debate on TV.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
It is good to want to uplift people, but sometimes you can't. All you can really do is offer assistance and cooperation in their own decision to improve their life.
There was a horrific and funny (if you like graveyard humour)story about the Nazi attempts to deal with social misfits - who were just as precedent then as today.
They actually started from the premise of “saving” Aryans. So they tried all kinds of programs to rehabilitate alcoholics, support problem families etc. all surprisingly liberal and modern, really…
The story went downhill from there. And ended up where you’d expect a Nazi social program to end up.
The Nazis were quite good at some things. The above st
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
That's a pretty shocking statement.
If a family member came round to my house and started causing trouble, the police might get involved, but there's virtually no chance my neighbours complaints would get me thrown out of a house I own.
When was the last time you were in a situation where you could have been hit in the face by a tire iron? Someone in the situation he's described is much more likely to be a victim of violence.
Is there no world in which his mum was given more support as a heroin user when she was pregnant, or as a new mum?
It may be that random luck pushes one person closer to the edge than another, but there are plenty of ways that a society can help make sure the edge is just that bit further away.
If the person is set on reaching that edge, they will do so. Others should, as I've said, be there to help that guy turn it around when he is ready to do so, but it has to start with him, and the starting point is his own belief that it can get just a little better, and easier, than it is today.
I'm fascinated to know where the original comment was going, Ken.
I thought someone might be.
The Nazi emphasis on the healthy body, even on bodily perfection, was a good thing imo, which they completely ruined, and effectively abolished from polite discourse, by misidentifying the cause of it as racial, when it was environmental, and within that, primarily nutritional. And when the Nazis got something wrong, boy did they get it wrong.
Jesus Christ.
Do you have a perfect body, LuckyGuy? And if not, why not?
Unbelievable.
I'd have been wheeled into the gas chamber - no doubt.
Case in point of what I mean.
And no, I don't have the perfect body, but physical perfection should be seen merely as an outward sign of perfect health, which is something we all deserve, whatever our startinf point. And that is a good aspiration. And I don't mean a westernised view of perfection being applied universally, I mean good diets creating healthy individuals of all races and colours.
Leni Riefenstahl had similar thoughts about the Nuba.
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos. Penny is inept, I think. Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
Move on to what though? 'Culture wars' and vacuous nonsense like this:
"As PM I would fix the way Government machine works." "doing less for better" "My government will discard the priorities of Twitter and focus on the people's priorities." "We need to do things differently in government."
And, rather wonderfully:
"If you are telling the public what they want to hear, then you only help yourself."
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
The fact that she is black and a woman is a massive problem for Labour.
Who's leading Labour? A pale stale male who's lost his confidence.
Compare and contrast...
It’s not happened yet, and probably won’t, but already the Tories have had two women as prime minister, and labour none. Some on the left give the impression that they own the minority vote, so to see a black woman lead the country, and it be for the Tories, would raise some tricky questions.
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
I'm not worried about her electorally, but I am concerned that she doesn't have any answers to the issues we're experiencing at the moment beyond platitudes. Sunak's answers aren't very good IMO but they are answers. Badenoch (please, dear god, can we not address politicians like they're our mate off the school bus, it's fucking grating) is a similarly projectable right-wing blank slate to Mordaunt but has had a very slightly better debate performance. I genuinely want the next PM to succeed, because I don't want a really quite serious financial, security and energy crisis to be handled in an amateruish way.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
It is good to want to uplift people, but sometimes you can't. All you can really do is offer assistance and cooperation in their own decision to improve their life.
There was a horrific and funny (if you like graveyard humour)story about the Nazi attempts to deal with social misfits - who were just as precedent then as today.
They actually started from the premise of “saving” Aryans. So they tried all kinds of programs to rehabilitate alcoholics, support problem families etc. all surprisingly liberal and modern, really…
The story went downhill from there. And ended up where you’d expect a Nazi social program to end up.
The Nazis were quite good at some things. The above st
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
That's a pretty shocking statement.
If a family member came round to my house and started causing trouble, the police might get involved, but there's virtually no chance my neighbours complaints would get me thrown out of a house I own.
When was the last time you were in a situation where you could have been hit in the face by a tire iron? Someone in the situation he's described is much more likely to be a victim of violence.
Is there no world in which his mum was given more support as a heroin user when she was pregnant, or as a new mum?
It may be that random luck pushes one person closer to the edge than another, but there are plenty of ways that a society can help make sure the edge is just that bit further away.
If the person is set on reaching that edge, they will do so. Others should, as I've said, be there to help that guy turn it around when he is ready to do so, but it has to start with him, and the starting point is his own belief that it can get just a little better, and easier, than it is today.
I'm fascinated to know where the original comment was going, Ken.
I thought someone might be.
The Nazi emphasis on the healthy body, even on bodily perfection, was a good thing imo, which they completely ruined, and effectively abolished from polite discourse, by misidentifying the cause of it as racial, when it was environmental, and within that, primarily nutritional. And when the Nazis got something wrong, boy did they get it wrong.
Jesus Christ.
Do you have a perfect body, LuckyGuy? And if not, why not?
Unbelievable.
I'd have been wheeled into the gas chamber - no doubt.
Case in point of what I mean.
And no, I don't have the perfect body, but physical perfection should be seen merely as an outward sign of perfect health, which is something we all deserve, whatever our startinf point. And that is a good aspiration. And I don't mean a westernised view of perfection being applied universally, I mean good diets creating healthy individuals of all races and colours.
Hang on, you said "The Nazis were quite good at some things" but so far have not explained what things they were good at.
I mean, I can think of a few things (genocide, oppression, aggression, forced sterilisation...) but I am guessing these are not what you had in mind?
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
It is good to want to uplift people, but sometimes you can't. All you can really do is offer assistance and cooperation in their own decision to improve their life.
There was a horrific and funny (if you like graveyard humour)story about the Nazi attempts to deal with social misfits - who were just as precedent then as today.
They actually started from the premise of “saving” Aryans. So they tried all kinds of programs to rehabilitate alcoholics, support problem families etc. all surprisingly liberal and modern, really…
The story went downhill from there. And ended up where you’d expect a Nazi social program to end up.
The Nazis were quite good at some things. The above st
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
That's a pretty shocking statement.
If a family member came round to my house and started causing trouble, the police might get involved, but there's virtually no chance my neighbours complaints would get me thrown out of a house I own.
When was the last time you were in a situation where you could have been hit in the face by a tire iron? Someone in the situation he's described is much more likely to be a victim of violence.
Is there no world in which his mum was given more support as a heroin user when she was pregnant, or as a new mum?
It may be that random luck pushes one person closer to the edge than another, but there are plenty of ways that a society can help make sure the edge is just that bit further away.
If the person is set on reaching that edge, they will do so. Others should, as I've said, be there to help that guy turn it around when he is ready to do so, but it has to start with him, and the starting point is his own belief that it can get just a little better, and easier, than it is today.
I'm fascinated to know where the original comment was going, Ken.
I thought someone might be.
The Nazi emphasis on the healthy body, even on bodily perfection, was a good thing imo, which they completely ruined, and effectively abolished from polite discourse, by misidentifying the cause of it as racial, when it was environmental, and within that, primarily nutritional. And when the Nazis got something wrong, boy did they get it wrong.
Jesus Christ.
Do you have a perfect body, LuckyGuy? And if not, why not?
Unbelievable.
I'd have been wheeled into the gas chamber - no doubt.
Case in point of what I mean.
And no, I don't have the perfect body, but physical perfection should be seen merely as an outward sign of perfect health, which is something we all deserve, whatever our startinf point. And that is a good aspiration. And I don't mean a westernised view of perfection being applied universally, I mean good diets creating healthy individuals of all races and colours.
Leni Riefenstahl had similar thoughts about the Nuba.
Indeed.
Western society is obsessed with body image to a degree which makes the Nazis looked bored by it, though.
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos. Penny is inept, I think. Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
Move on to what though? 'Culture wars' and vacuous nonsense like this:
"As PM I would fix the way Government machine works." "doing less for better" "My government will discard the priorities of Twitter and focus on the people's priorities." "We need to do things differently in government."
And, rather wonderfully:
"If you are telling the public what they want to hear, then you only help yourself."
I don’t think any of that is vacuous. They just need elaboration.
I noted last night though that her claim that “welfare begins at home” should logically mean that wealthy pensioners should stay using the equity in their houses.
The welfare bill is overwhelmingly pensions and assorted elderly add-ons.
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos. Penny is inept, I think. Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
Move on to what though? 'Culture wars' and vacuous nonsense like this:
"As PM I would fix the way Government machine works." "doing less for better" "My government will discard the priorities of Twitter and focus on the people's priorities." "We need to do things differently in government."
And, rather wonderfully:
"If you are telling the public what they want to hear, then you only help yourself."
I don’t think any of that is vacuous. They just need elaboration.
I noted last night though that her claim that “welfare begins at home” should logically mean that wealthy pensioners should stay using the equity in their houses.
The welfare bill is overwhelmingly pensions and assorted elderly add-ons.
It's also the underlying assumption that all homes are loving, safe places to be. Cookie's anecdote from earlier disproves that. Welfare doesn't begin at home if your home contains a heroin addict, alcoholic or violent adult. in it.
The first rule of limited overs cricket. England fail again.
It might be the first rule, but is it true? Is there an advantage in taking 50 overs to score 240 vs 280 in 40 overs? The opponents don’t get more time to chase (at least not in this version of limited overs). You might factor in tiredness, but a few more overs for professional cricketers?
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
The fact that she is black and a woman is a massive problem for Labour.
Who's leading Labour? A pale stale male who's lost his confidence.
Compare and contrast...
It’s not happened yet, and probably won’t, but already the Tories have had two women as prime minister, and labour none. Some on the left give the impression that they own the minority vote, so to see a black woman lead the country, and it be for the Tories, would raise some tricky questions.
It's only an issue if the Labour leadership make it one. They won't. They'll continue to hit the Tories on the economy, over and over, until either things get better or the election happens. This is not a hard problem. Starmer, for all that the various PB Tories slag him off, is extremely adept at avoiding labour getting tarpitted in culture war exchanges either from the left or the right. He is extremely focused in his attacks, and I can't see that changing.
In the interest of not underestimating potential opponents however, Badenoch has the opportunity to run a better campaign with more energy and actual ideas than Johnson (although I'm not really sure what they are yet). That will force a response from Labour, which allows the Tories to do their usual strategy of focus grouping Starmer's policies and nicking the best ones. She doesn't strike me as incompetent, and she's unlikely to end up as mired in scandal (although she might choose unsuitable cabinet ministers). In that respect she's probably on a par with Sunak in terms of how tough an opponent she would be, in my view meeting the "generic replacement Tory" standard. I don't think she would utterly sink the party, but I think she has a very hard job digging the Conservatives out of their self-inflicted crater.
Looking at it again, it just seems like a standard pile-on against a politician with different views.
I have to note that I fundamentally disagree with Kemi’s position on economics and I am worried that she has made a war on woke her calling card.
But for all that, she appears more interested, thoughtful, competent, humane, and honest than the others.
For further information, the Badenoch/White row is also written about, from a pro-Badenoch perspective, on CapX, by Neil O'Brien (who is currently supporting her for leader).
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos. Penny is inept, I think. Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
Move on to what though? 'Culture wars' and vacuous nonsense like this:
"As PM I would fix the way Government machine works." "doing less for better" "My government will discard the priorities of Twitter and focus on the people's priorities." "We need to do things differently in government."
And, rather wonderfully:
"If you are telling the public what they want to hear, then you only help yourself."
I don’t think any of that is vacuous. They just need elaboration.
I noted last night though that her claim that “welfare begins at home” should logically mean that wealthy pensioners should stay using the equity in their houses.
The welfare bill is overwhelmingly pensions and assorted elderly add-ons.
I'm not sure what would meet your definition of vacuous, if "doing less for better" doesn't.
"Welfare begins at home" is another fine example of the vacuousness. What does it mean ffs? If people have enough money to do their own welfare they don't get any anyway (except non-means tested benefits like SRP or PIP - good luck with cutting those ones).
If it means 'families should look after themselves before asking for state help'* I'll file that under 'Statements of the Bleeding Obvious'. (*Most do of course and the benefits system is set up to ensure that, which it pretty much does.)
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos. Penny is inept, I think. Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
Move on to what though? 'Culture wars' and vacuous nonsense like this:
"As PM I would fix the way Government machine works." "doing less for better" "My government will discard the priorities of Twitter and focus on the people's priorities." "We need to do things differently in government."
And, rather wonderfully:
"If you are telling the public what they want to hear, then you only help yourself."
I don’t think any of that is vacuous. They just need elaboration.
I noted last night though that her claim that “welfare begins at home” should logically mean that wealthy pensioners should stay using the equity in their houses.
The welfare bill is overwhelmingly pensions and assorted elderly add-ons.
It's also the underlying assumption that all homes are loving, safe places to be. Cookie's anecdote from earlier disproves that. Welfare doesn't begin at home if your home contains a heroin addict, alcoholic or violent adult. in it.
more abuse happens in the home than in gender neutral bathrooms
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
The fact that she is black and a woman is a massive problem for Labour.
Who's leading Labour? A pale stale male who's lost his confidence.
Compare and contrast...
It’s not happened yet, and probably won’t, but already the Tories have had two women as prime minister, and labour none. Some on the left give the impression that they own the minority vote, so to see a black woman lead the country, and it be for the Tories, would raise some tricky questions.
It's only an issue if the Labour leadership make it one. They won't. They'll continue to hit the Tories on the economy, over and over, until either things get better or the election happens. This is not a hard problem. Starmer, for all that the various PB Tories slag him off, is extremely adept at avoiding labour getting tarpitted in culture war exchanges either from the left or the right. He is extremely focused in his attacks, and I can't see that changing.
In the interest of not underestimating potential opponents however, Badenoch has the opportunity to run a better campaign with more energy and actual ideas than Johnson (although I'm not really sure what they are yet). That will force a response from Labour, which allows the Tories to do their usual strategy of focus grouping Starmer's policies and nicking the best ones. She doesn't strike me as incompetent, and she's unlikely to end up as mired in scandal (although she might choose unsuitable cabinet ministers). In that respect she's probably on a par with Sunak in terms of how tough an opponent she would be, in my view meeting the "generic replacement Tory" standard. I don't think she would utterly sink the party, but I think she has a very hard job digging the Conservatives out of their self-inflicted crater.
I think there would be a bit of an issue. If you show the country a conservative, black, woman, how many minority voters will look at that and start thinking more positively about voting conservative?
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
The fact that she is black and a woman is a massive problem for Labour.
Who's leading Labour? A pale stale male who's lost his confidence.
Compare and contrast...
It’s not happened yet, and probably won’t, but already the Tories have had two women as prime minister, and labour none. Some on the left give the impression that they own the minority vote, so to see a black woman lead the country, and it be for the Tories, would raise some tricky questions.
It's only an issue if the Labour leadership make it one. They won't. They'll continue to hit the Tories on the economy, over and over, until either things get better or the election happens. This is not a hard problem. Starmer, for all that the various PB Tories slag him off, is extremely adept at avoiding labour getting tarpitted in culture war exchanges either from the left or the right. He is extremely focused in his attacks, and I can't see that changing.
In the interest of not underestimating potential opponents however, Badenoch has the opportunity to run a better campaign with more energy and actual ideas than Johnson (although I'm not really sure what they are yet). That will force a response from Labour, which allows the Tories to do their usual strategy of focus grouping Starmer's policies and nicking the best ones. She doesn't strike me as incompetent, and she's unlikely to end up as mired in scandal (although she might choose unsuitable cabinet ministers). In that respect she's probably on a par with Sunak in terms of how tough an opponent she would be, in my view meeting the "generic replacement Tory" standard. I don't think she would utterly sink the party, but I think she has a very hard job digging the Conservatives out of their self-inflicted crater.
I think there would be a bit of an issue. If you show the country a conservative, black, woman, how many minority voters will look at that and start thinking more positively about voting conservative?
Depends if identity politics is significant or not.
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
Here's a question for you CHB.
If it was a middle aged portly balding straight white guy up there on the stump saying exactly what Kemi is saying, word for word, would you be be calling him a right wing Trumpist nutjob?
The first rule of limited overs cricket. England fail again.
It might be the first rule, but is it true? Is there an advantage in taking 50 overs to score 240 vs 280 in 40 overs? The opponents don’t get more time to chase (at least not in this version of limited overs). You might factor in tiredness, but a few more overs for professional cricketers?
So I actually think it’s up for debate.
Well the team chasing today, has 10% more balls to get to the same score on the same pitch. Any team, given the choice, would want to be allowed more balls than their opponents, which is why the first rule of limited overs cricket is always use all the overs.
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
Here's a question for you CHB.
If it was a middle aged portly balding straight white guy up there on the stump saying exactly what Kemi is saying, word for word, would you be be calling him a right wing Trumpist nutjob?
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
Here's a question for you CHB.
If it was a middle aged portly balding straight white guy up there on the stump saying exactly what Kemi is saying, word for word, would you be be calling him a right wing Trumpist nutjob?
Probably would yes. Is Kemi doing that though?
Eh ?
Your second sentence is the entire premise of @Misty question.
F##king dickhead protestors in Tour de France have just caused Steven Kruijswijk to be seriously injured. Wout van Aert also crashed by luckily escaped unhurt.
F##king dickhead protestors in Tour de France have just caused Steven Kruijswijk to be seriously injured. Wout van Aert also crashed by luckily escaped unhurt.
F##king dickhead protestors in Tour de France have just caused Steven Kruijswijk to be seriously injured. Wout van Aert also crashed by luckily escaped unhurt.
Not appreciated by all Replying to @JohnRentoul For getting more black and brown Tory MPs to entrench and expand institutional and systemic racism in Britain?
Not the right kind of improved representation I guess.
F##king dickhead protestors in Tour de France have just caused Steven Kruijswijk to be seriously injured. Wout van Aert also crashed by luckily escaped unhurt.
What are they protesting? That people should not cycle so much?
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
The fact that she is black and a woman is a massive problem for Labour.
Who's leading Labour? A pale stale male who's lost his confidence.
Compare and contrast...
It’s not happened yet, and probably won’t, but already the Tories have had two women as prime minister, and labour none. Some on the left give the impression that they own the minority vote, so to see a black woman lead the country, and it be for the Tories, would raise some tricky questions.
It's only an issue if the Labour leadership make it one. They won't. They'll continue to hit the Tories on the economy, over and over, until either things get better or the election happens. This is not a hard problem. Starmer, for all that the various PB Tories slag him off, is extremely adept at avoiding labour getting tarpitted in culture war exchanges either from the left or the right. He is extremely focused in his attacks, and I can't see that changing.
In the interest of not underestimating potential opponents however, Badenoch has the opportunity to run a better campaign with more energy and actual ideas than Johnson (although I'm not really sure what they are yet). That will force a response from Labour, which allows the Tories to do their usual strategy of focus grouping Starmer's policies and nicking the best ones. She doesn't strike me as incompetent, and she's unlikely to end up as mired in scandal (although she might choose unsuitable cabinet ministers). In that respect she's probably on a par with Sunak in terms of how tough an opponent she would be, in my view meeting the "generic replacement Tory" standard. I don't think she would utterly sink the party, but I think she has a very hard job digging the Conservatives out of their self-inflicted crater.
I think there would be a bit of an issue. If you show the country a conservative, black, woman, how many minority voters will look at that and start thinking more positively about voting conservative?
If you are talking about a highly privileged black woman, whose uncle is one of the main contenders to become president of Nigeria, then I think the answer is not many.
F##king dickhead protestors in Tour de France have just caused Steven Kruijswijk to be seriously injured. Wout van Aert also crashed by luckily escaped unhurt.
What are they protesting? That people should not cycle so much?
Eco-fascists twats gluing themselves to the middle of the road don't do logical....like the idiots who stopped electric trains or use diesel generators to power their equipment.
Not appreciated by all Replying to @JohnRentoul For getting more black and brown Tory MPs to entrench and expand institutional and systemic racism in Britain?
Not the right kind of improved representation I guess.
If I don't agree with someones politics then why should it matter if they share some of my characteristics?
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos. Penny is inept, I think. Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
Move on to what though? 'Culture wars' and vacuous nonsense like this:
"As PM I would fix the way Government machine works." "doing less for better" "My government will discard the priorities of Twitter and focus on the people's priorities." "We need to do things differently in government."
And, rather wonderfully:
"If you are telling the public what they want to hear, then you only help yourself."
I don’t think any of that is vacuous. They just need elaboration.
I noted last night though that her claim that “welfare begins at home” should logically mean that wealthy pensioners should stay using the equity in their houses.
The welfare bill is overwhelmingly pensions and assorted elderly add-ons.
It's also the underlying assumption that all homes are loving, safe places to be. Cookie's anecdote from earlier disproves that. Welfare doesn't begin at home if your home contains a heroin addict, alcoholic or violent adult. in it.
more abuse happens in the home than in gender neutral bathrooms
Good point. We should get rid of all homes, before we get rid of gender neutral bathrooms.
The first rule of limited overs cricket. England fail again.
It might be the first rule, but is it true? Is there an advantage in taking 50 overs to score 240 vs 280 in 40 overs? The opponents don’t get more time to chase (at least not in this version of limited overs). You might factor in tiredness, but a few more overs for professional cricketers?
So I actually think it’s up for debate.
Well the team chasing today, has 10% more balls to get to the same score on the same pitch. Any team, given the choice, would want to be allowed more balls than their opponents, which is why the first rule of limited overs cricket is always use all the overs.
Great catch from Roy. 13/1
I think its generally a good target (to bat a full over compliment) but occasionally you can play too cautious and end up 220- 6 (or something like that ) - The idea is to of course score most runs in an innings and teams aim to score at the optimum rate using 50 overs - So its kinda true but if you play safe and definitely ensure you bat 50 overs all the time , there will be times when you coudl have scored more = so occasional fails happen and need to happen really in not completing 50 overs.Its the sort of rule that Geoff Boycott likes to spout for instance and limited over cricket has moved on since his day
Not appreciated by all Replying to @JohnRentoul For getting more black and brown Tory MPs to entrench and expand institutional and systemic racism in Britain?
Not the right kind of improved representation I guess.
Indeed, I saw in the Freedland, the non white leadership contenders were called House N words by one person.
Not appreciated by all Replying to @JohnRentoul For getting more black and brown Tory MPs to entrench and expand institutional and systemic racism in Britain?
Not the right kind of improved representation I guess.
If I don't agree with someones politics then why should it matter if they share some of my characteristics?
It shouldn't. But dismissing a genuine and rather transformative improvement in political diversity over the last 20 years, among all the major parties, should not be dismissed as meaningless just because people do not agree with the politics of people either.
And that is clearly what such comments are about. That even though there has been an improvement, it means nothing. That comment is not about disagreeing with a specific person or persons' politics, it is blanket dismissing the entire group of Tory MPs of colour. Unless I am to believe all of that group have the same politics to disagree with? So I think it rather generous to interpret it as being disagreement about 'someones politics'. It's judged them all.
There has been a significant increase in diversity, which many have argued is a positive thing in and of itself. Very very few have argued that such an increase has eliminated any racial concerns altogether, so I think it rather silly to act like it means nothing, just because it does not mean everything.
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
The fact that she is black and a woman is a massive problem for Labour.
Who's leading Labour? A pale stale male who's lost his confidence.
Compare and contrast...
It’s not happened yet, and probably won’t, but already the Tories have had two women as prime minister, and labour none. Some on the left give the impression that they own the minority vote, so to see a black woman lead the country, and it be for the Tories, would raise some tricky questions.
It's only an issue if the Labour leadership make it one. They won't. They'll continue to hit the Tories on the economy, over and over, until either things get better or the election happens. This is not a hard problem. Starmer, for all that the various PB Tories slag him off, is extremely adept at avoiding labour getting tarpitted in culture war exchanges either from the left or the right. He is extremely focused in his attacks, and I can't see that changing.
In the interest of not underestimating potential opponents however, Badenoch has the opportunity to run a better campaign with more energy and actual ideas than Johnson (although I'm not really sure what they are yet). That will force a response from Labour, which allows the Tories to do their usual strategy of focus grouping Starmer's policies and nicking the best ones. She doesn't strike me as incompetent, and she's unlikely to end up as mired in scandal (although she might choose unsuitable cabinet ministers). In that respect she's probably on a par with Sunak in terms of how tough an opponent she would be, in my view meeting the "generic replacement Tory" standard. I don't think she would utterly sink the party, but I think she has a very hard job digging the Conservatives out of their self-inflicted crater.
I think there would be a bit of an issue. If you show the country a conservative, black, woman, how many minority voters will look at that and start thinking more positively about voting conservative?
Possibly, although I'd argue that we've already had a realignment in minority votes along generational lines. I just don't think it moves the dial enough in places both sides need to win to push the elephant in the room out of the way. Whichever side makes the best play of dealing with the cost-of-living crisis is going to win the next election, and I don't think the race, religion or gender of the party leaders is going to matter that much.
F##king dickhead protestors in Tour de France have just caused Steven Kruijswijk to be seriously injured. Wout van Aert also crashed by luckily escaped unhurt.
What are they protesting? That people should not cycle so much?
Eco-fascists twats gluing themselves to the middle of the road don't do logical....like the idiots who stopped electric trains or use diesel generators to power their equipment.
The marshals at Silverstone showed how to deal with the soap-dodgers. Zero f***ks given.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h A PM is not an after dinner speaker or someone whose anecdotes to enjoy on a chat shows. What matters in a PM is being able to carry your team, having the right policies & being able to deliver them, & convincing the public that you mean what you say.
Not appreciated by all Replying to @JohnRentoul For getting more black and brown Tory MPs to entrench and expand institutional and systemic racism in Britain?
Not the right kind of improved representation I guess.
If I don't agree with someones politics then why should it matter if they share some of my characteristics?
It shouldn't. But dismissing a genuine and rather transformative improvement in political diversity over the last 20 years, among all the major parties, should not be dismissed as meaningless just because people do not agree with the politics of people either.
And that is clearly what such comments are about. That even though there has been an improvement, it means nothing. That comment is not about disagreeing with a specific person or persons' politics, it is blanket dismissing the entire group of Tory MPs of colour. Unless I am to believe all of that group have the same politics to disagree with?
There has been a significant increase in diversity, which many have argued is a positive thing in and of itself. Very very few have argued that such an increase has eliminated any racial concerns altogether, so I think it rather silly to act like it means nothing, just because it does not mean everything.
And it's too late for Labour to claim that it's meaningless given they spent a long time pointing at the lack of diversity on the Tory benches:
But he didn't seem prepared for a much simpler approach from the Labour leader. Where are the women on your frontbench, demanded Miliband. And the beauty of it was that once the attack was launched, there was nothing much that the prime minister could do about it. As if the window left ajar had seized on its hinge and couldn't quickly be shut again.
There they were on display, an all-male frontbench: 16 middle-aged white men; eight in grey suits, including the prime minister himself, eight in dark blue.
F##king dickhead protestors in Tour de France have just caused Steven Kruijswijk to be seriously injured. Wout van Aert also crashed by luckily escaped unhurt.
What are they protesting? That people should not cycle so much?
Eco-fascists twats gluing themselves to the middle of the road don't do logical....like the idiots who stopped electric trains or use diesel generators to power their equipment.
The marshals at Silverstone showed how to deal with the soap-dodgers. Zero f***ks given.
Back in the day there were incidents when the cyclists themselves stopped to fight the protestors...
Behold the expansion of institutional racism at the top of our political institutions I feel like at least some of them are not on board with the expansion mission. At the least they are not very good at it. It's classic 'I don't like how things are still, therefore no progress has been made', like XR people not accepting at least some good changes have occurred.
And yes, there's still work to be done in this and many areas.
I think Kemi would be fine - she just lacks experience.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
The fact that she is black and a woman is a massive problem for Labour.
Who's leading Labour? A pale stale male who's lost his confidence.
Compare and contrast...
It’s not happened yet, and probably won’t, but already the Tories have had two women as prime minister, and labour none. Some on the left give the impression that they own the minority vote, so to see a black woman lead the country, and it be for the Tories, would raise some tricky questions.
It's only an issue if the Labour leadership make it one. They won't. They'll continue to hit the Tories on the economy, over and over, until either things get better or the election happens. This is not a hard problem. Starmer, for all that the various PB Tories slag him off, is extremely adept at avoiding labour getting tarpitted in culture war exchanges either from the left or the right. He is extremely focused in his attacks, and I can't see that changing.
In the interest of not underestimating potential opponents however, Badenoch has the opportunity to run a better campaign with more energy and actual ideas than Johnson (although I'm not really sure what they are yet). That will force a response from Labour, which allows the Tories to do their usual strategy of focus grouping Starmer's policies and nicking the best ones. She doesn't strike me as incompetent, and she's unlikely to end up as mired in scandal (although she might choose unsuitable cabinet ministers). In that respect she's probably on a par with Sunak in terms of how tough an opponent she would be, in my view meeting the "generic replacement Tory" standard. I don't think she would utterly sink the party, but I think she has a very hard job digging the Conservatives out of their self-inflicted crater.
I think there would be a bit of an issue. If you show the country a conservative, black, woman, how many minority voters will look at that and start thinking more positively about voting conservative?
Sadly, I suspect probably about the same number as the number of 'majority' voters who would normally vote Conservative but would be disinclined to vote for a black woman.
Go over to ConHome, peruse the comments, then come back and tell us again?
The mystery with the Tories is how any safe seat selection committee ever manages to decide that the likes of Bone or Swayne or Chope or Fabricant are the best people to represent their local area for decades to come…?
Seriously - you’ve got a safe seat - so should have a veritable panoply of talent wanting to be your MP - how does such a place ever end up being represented by the likes of a brain-dead bigot like Chope?
That involves the rather large assumption that the ConHome comments-box commenters are a representation of typical Conservative Members.
You aren't down with the kids. Mullet all the rage.
Never a surer sign that the latest generation are going astray. Sod all that pronoun business.
At least you can do something about the terrible haircut, the terrible tats a lot of younger people have (that isn't to say all tatoos are bad, just I see a hell of a lot of terrible ones)....I foresee tattoo removable businesses being a massive growth industry in 10 years time.
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos. Penny is inept, I think. Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
Move on to what though? 'Culture wars' and vacuous nonsense like this:
"As PM I would fix the way Government machine works." "doing less for better" "My government will discard the priorities of Twitter and focus on the people's priorities." "We need to do things differently in government."
And, rather wonderfully:
"If you are telling the public what they want to hear, then you only help yourself."
I don’t think any of that is vacuous. They just need elaboration.
I noted last night though that her claim that “welfare begins at home” should logically mean that wealthy pensioners should stay using the equity in their houses.
The welfare bill is overwhelmingly pensions and assorted elderly add-ons.
You are so kind to Badenoch. The definition of "vacuous" surely is that it needs elaboration.
Not my usual reading but saw a discussion about Badenoch on Mumsnet. They totally saw through her, particularly on the subject of teaching assistants that she apparently dismissed as useless. They know TAs are often keeping schools together.
You aren't down with the kids. Mullet all the rage.
Never a surer sign that the latest generation are going astray. Sod all that pronoun business.
At least you can do something about the terrible haircut, the terrible tats a lot of younger people have (that isn't to say all tatoos are bad, just I see a hell of a lot of terrible ones)....I foresee tattoo removable businesses being a massive growth industry in 10 years time.
Behold the expansion of institutional racism at the top of our political institutions I feel like at least some of them are not on board with the expansion mission. At the least they are not very good at it. It's classic 'I don't like how things are still, therefore no progress has been made', like XR people not accepting at least some good changes have occurred.
And yes, there's still work to be done in this and many areas.
I'm happy to defend people's right to continue to push for change. There is certainly a strong argument that environmental policies are not pursued expeditiously enough, even when they make perfect economic sense to do so (onshore wind, solar, insulation grants). There is still some fairly odious racism in parts of our culture that should continue to be swept away (just about any weekend at a football ground for instance).
But I'd be very happy to see a minority ethnic PM from any party. There are plenty of little girls who saw a woman standing at the world stage in the 80s and felt that meant they could do anything. There'll be plenty of Afro-British and Carribbean-British kids watching the telly if Badenoch goes to the G7 next year and thinking the same. It's churlish to think that's bad, even if I'm still happy to give the Tories a kicking for policies that are xenophobic or disproportionately hurt minority groups.
Go over to ConHome, peruse the comments, then come back and tell us again?
The mystery with the Tories is how any safe seat selection committee ever manages to decide that the likes of Bone or Swayne or Chope or Fabricant are the best people to represent their local area for decades to come…?
Seriously - you’ve got a safe seat - so should have a veritable panoply of talent wanting to be your MP - how does such a place ever end up being represented by the likes of a brain-dead bigot like Chope?
That involves the rather large assumption that the ConHome comments-box commenters are a representation of typical Conservative Members.
Are they?
Perfectly? Surely not. But sufficiently? Probably.
Our CEO just emailed to tell us all employees are being given Monday and Tuesday afternoon off with pay (office based job). Hopefully other employers are feeling similarly enlightened!
Our CEO just emailed to tell us all employees are being given Monday and Tuesday afternoon off with pay (office based job). Hopefully other employers are feeling similarly enlightened!
I'm curious what our main office will do given they're in the red zone. Probably everyone will come in and slowly cook.
Our CEO just emailed to tell us all employees are being given Monday and Tuesday afternoon off with pay (office based job). Hopefully other employers are feeling similarly enlightened!
yeah be great if nobody works on Mon or Tues afternoon - no hospitals open or police or food being produced - These things sound great but it sounds like your company does not do anything essential then? Also if office based how do your colleagues get home for the afternoon - bus , train? Cannot they have the afternoon off as well?
Her successor as equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, also running for the leadership, has said Mordaunt’s stance in the past was to push for self-identification. That contradicts Mordaunt’s insistence in Friday’s Channel 4 debate that she was “never in favour of self-ID”.
Badenoch told the Sunday Times: “I’m not going to call her a liar, I think it’s very possible she genuinely did not understand what she was signing off. It’s a very complex area.”
Badenoch did not succeed Mordaunt as equalities minister, nor did Truss (who, according to some reports I have seen, claimed she did in the debate).
Mordaunt was Minister for Women and Equalities from April 2018 to July 2019. At the start of this period, she was also Secretary of State for International Development, then on 1st May 2019 she left that role and became Secretary of State for Defence.
She was succeeded as Minister for Women and Equalities by Amber Rudd, who had also held the role immediately before Mordaunt. Truss succeeded Rudd, not Mordaunt.
Badenoch was Minister for Equalities, working under Truss. She succeeded Baroness Williams of Trafford, who was appointed at the start of Rudd's first stint as Minister for Women and Equalities and continued to hold the position until 5 months after Truss was appointed.
Our CEO just emailed to tell us all employees are being given Monday and Tuesday afternoon off with pay (office based job). Hopefully other employers are feeling similarly enlightened!
On Friday I issued a full WFH order for Mon/Tues with the note that if becomes too hot for WFH they can down tools.
Her successor as equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, also running for the leadership, has said Mordaunt’s stance in the past was to push for self-identification. That contradicts Mordaunt’s insistence in Friday’s Channel 4 debate that she was “never in favour of self-ID”.
Badenoch told the Sunday Times: “I’m not going to call her a liar, I think it’s very possible she genuinely did not understand what she was signing off. It’s a very complex area.”
You can tell she's had legal training. That's what's known as funnelling in cross-examination or in any sort of investigative interviewing. Either Mordaunt is a liar or she's a bit thick and incompetent.
Her successor as equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, also running for the leadership, has said Mordaunt’s stance in the past was to push for self-identification. That contradicts Mordaunt’s insistence in Friday’s Channel 4 debate that she was “never in favour of self-ID”.
Badenoch told the Sunday Times: “I’m not going to call her a liar, I think it’s very possible she genuinely did not understand what she was signing off. It’s a very complex area.”
You can tell she's had legal training. That's what's known as funnelling in cross-examination or in any sort of investigative interviewing. Either Mordaunt is a liar or she's a bit thick and incompetent.
What's funnier is when people do that to themselves. Corbyn and Boris both did so multiple times.
Our CEO just emailed to tell us all employees are being given Monday and Tuesday afternoon off with pay (office based job). Hopefully other employers are feeling similarly enlightened!
yeah be great if nobody works on Mon or Tues afternoon - no hospitals open or police or food being produced - These things sound great but it sounds like your company does not do anything essential then? Also if office based how do your colleagues get home for the afternoon - bus , train? Cannot they have the afternoon off as well?
Or schools.
Although our school stock is so bloody awful - so much glass and concrete, so little ventilation- that may be a choice that's forced on us.
Her successor as equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, also running for the leadership, has said Mordaunt’s stance in the past was to push for self-identification. That contradicts Mordaunt’s insistence in Friday’s Channel 4 debate that she was “never in favour of self-ID”.
Badenoch told the Sunday Times: “I’m not going to call her a liar, I think it’s very possible she genuinely did not understand what she was signing off. It’s a very complex area.”
You can tell she's had legal training. That's what's known as funnelling in cross-examination or in any sort of investigative interviewing. Either Mordaunt is a liar or she's a bit thick and incompetent.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
It is good to want to uplift people, but sometimes you can't. All you can really do is offer assistance and cooperation in their own decision to improve their life.
There was a horrific and funny (if you like graveyard humour)story about the Nazi attempts to deal with social misfits - who were just as precedent then as today.
They actually started from the premise of “saving” Aryans. So they tried all kinds of programs to rehabilitate alcoholics, support problem families etc. all surprisingly liberal and modern, really…
The story went downhill from there. And ended up where you’d expect a Nazi social program to end up.
The Nazis were quite good at some things. The above st
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
That's a pretty shocking statement.
If a family member came round to my house and started causing trouble, the police might get involved, but there's virtually no chance my neighbours complaints would get me thrown out of a house I own.
When was the last time you were in a situation where you could have been hit in the face by a tire iron? Someone in the situation he's described is much more likely to be a victim of violence.
Is there no world in which his mum was given more support as a heroin user when she was pregnant, or as a new mum?
It may be that random luck pushes one person closer to the edge than another, but there are plenty of ways that a society can help make sure the edge is just that bit further away.
If the person is set on reaching that edge, they will do so. Others should, as I've said, be there to help that guy turn it around when he is ready to do so, but it has to start with him, and the starting point is his own belief that it can get just a little better, and easier, than it is today.
I'm fascinated to know where the original comment was going, Ken.
I thought someone might be.
The Nazi emphasis on the healthy body, even on bodily perfection, was a good thing imo, which they completely ruined, and effectively abolished from polite discourse, by misidentifying the cause of it as racial, when it was environmental, and within that, primarily nutritional. And when the Nazis got something wrong, boy did they get it wrong.
Jesus Christ.
Do you have a perfect body, LuckyGuy? And if not, why not?
Unbelievable.
I'd have been wheeled into the gas chamber - no doubt.
Case in point of what I mean.
And no, I don't have the perfect body, but physical perfection should be seen merely as an outward sign of perfect health, which is something we all deserve, whatever our startinf point. And that is a good aspiration. And I don't mean a westernised view of perfection being applied universally, I mean good diets creating healthy individuals of all races and colours.
Hang on, you said "The Nazis were quite good at some things" but so far have not explained what things they were good at.
I mean, I can think of a few things (genocide, oppression, aggression, forced sterilisation...) but I am guessing these are not what you had in mind?
Well, that part of their philosophy, the pursuit of the healthy body, was what I was going to say they were quite good at. It wasn't a developed point, hence I didn't post it, vanilla saved it and reinserted it into my post.
This is a common thread running through most of my arguments about public policy. Being healthy - positively thriving, not just 'not sick', is a solution to so much. It's a solution to funding the NHS and later years care, it's a solution to extending the life of our workforce, it's a solution to dealing with Covid - not just strategies for 'not getting it', but to being robust enough to shrug it off. Perhaps behind spiritual health, physical health is the most important thing that we have.
Her successor as equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, also running for the leadership, has said Mordaunt’s stance in the past was to push for self-identification. That contradicts Mordaunt’s insistence in Friday’s Channel 4 debate that she was “never in favour of self-ID”.
Badenoch told the Sunday Times: “I’m not going to call her a liar, I think it’s very possible she genuinely did not understand what she was signing off. It’s a very complex area.”
You can tell she's had legal training. That's what's known as funnelling in cross-examination or in any sort of investigative interviewing. Either Mordaunt is a liar or she's a bit thick and incompetent.
Comments
I had been skeptical about her before the contest because I’d heard bad things, but as far as I can now tell it was fake news.
Rishi is a declinist from Davos.
Penny is inept, I think.
Truss is slightly mad.
Kemi would represent a clean break and a sign that the country is ready to move on.
We demand bad things.
We are not interested in good things.
Bad things are news.
Good things are not news.
I think I'd prefer Tugendhat overall still, but Badenoch would be my second choice. Mordaunt and Sunak level pegging, and then Truss a very distant fifth.
But we have avoided the really awful candidates already.
And no, I don't have the perfect body, but physical perfection should be seen merely as an outward sign of perfect health, which is something we all deserve, whatever our startinf point. And that is a good aspiration. And I don't mean a westernised view of perfection being applied universally, I mean good diets creating healthy individuals of all races and colours.
I don't think Labour "fears" her though.
Should he have revealed more?
Who's leading Labour? A pale stale male who's lost his confidence.
Compare and contrast...
"As PM I would fix the way Government machine works."
"doing less for better"
"My government will discard the priorities of Twitter and focus on the people's priorities."
"We need to do things differently in government."
And, rather wonderfully:
"If you are telling the public what they want to hear, then you only help yourself."
Very few manage to achieve it.
Name another. Gove?
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/29/minister-kemi-badenoch-under-fire-over-tweets-about-journalist-who-sent-her-questions
Looking at it again, it just seems like a standard pile-on against a politician with different views.
I have to note that I fundamentally disagree with Kemi’s position on economics and I am worried that she has made a war on woke her calling card.
But for all that, she appears more interested, thoughtful, competent, humane, and honest than the others.
"Whilst we have Starmer as leader, they all terrify me....."
I mean, I can think of a few things (genocide, oppression, aggression, forced sterilisation...) but I am guessing these are not what you had in mind?
Western society is obsessed with body image to a degree which makes the Nazis looked bored by it, though.
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1548602145246691329?s=21&t=8QyZz21UGJnLuhsNPy1u6g
I noted last night though that her claim that “welfare begins at home” should logically mean that wealthy pensioners should stay using the equity in their houses.
The welfare bill is overwhelmingly pensions and assorted elderly add-ons.
She’s only there to suppress Truss and Mordaunt votes.
So they say.
Cookie's anecdote from earlier disproves that.
Welfare doesn't begin at home if your home contains a heroin addict, alcoholic or violent adult. in it.
So I actually think it’s up for debate.
In the interest of not underestimating potential opponents however, Badenoch has the opportunity to run a better campaign with more energy and actual ideas than Johnson (although I'm not really sure what they are yet). That will force a response from Labour, which allows the Tories to do their usual strategy of focus grouping Starmer's policies and nicking the best ones. She doesn't strike me as incompetent, and she's unlikely to end up as mired in scandal (although she might choose unsuitable cabinet ministers). In that respect she's probably on a par with Sunak in terms of how tough an opponent she would be, in my view meeting the "generic replacement Tory" standard. I don't think she would utterly sink the party, but I think she has a very hard job digging the Conservatives out of their self-inflicted crater.
https://twitter.com/ian_fraser/status/1548268419979522048?s=21&t=OhG4gJ4QtHi3t-6Wx-ExpA
Heartwarming stuff.
https://capx.co/if-youre-an-ethnic-minority-conservative-you-just-cant-win/
"Welfare begins at home" is another fine example of the vacuousness. What does it mean ffs? If people have enough money to do their own welfare they don't get any anyway (except non-means tested benefits like SRP or PIP - good luck with cutting those ones).
If it means 'families should look after themselves before asking for state help'* I'll file that under 'Statements of the Bleeding Obvious'. (*Most do of course and the benefits system is set up to ensure that, which it pretty much does.)
EDIT: The Freedland piece is worth reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/15/next-pm-ethnic-minority-labour-keir-starmer
If it was a middle aged portly balding straight white guy up there on the stump saying exactly what Kemi is saying, word for word, would you be be calling him a right wing Trumpist nutjob?
Great catch from Roy. 13/1
“Osborne” (Rishi)
“Gove” (Kemi)
“May” (Penny)
“Boris” (Liz)
“Cameron” (Tom)
Your second sentence is the entire premise of @Misty question.
Replying to
@JohnRentoul
For getting more black and brown Tory MPs to entrench and expand institutional and systemic racism in Britain?
Not the right kind of improved representation I guess.
And that is clearly what such comments are about. That even though there has been an improvement, it means nothing. That comment is not about disagreeing with a specific person or persons' politics, it is blanket dismissing the entire group of Tory MPs of colour. Unless I am to believe all of that group have the same politics to disagree with? So I think it rather generous to interpret it as being disagreement about 'someones politics'. It's judged them all.
There has been a significant increase in diversity, which many have argued is a positive thing in and of itself. Very very few have argued that such an increase has eliminated any racial concerns altogether, so I think it rather silly to act like it means nothing, just because it does not mean everything.
This still says 40/39 for Mon / Tues
https://www.bbc.com/weather/2643743
@andrew_lilico
·
2h
A PM is not an after dinner speaker or someone whose anecdotes to enjoy on a chat shows. What matters in a PM is being able to carry your team, having the right policies & being able to deliver them, & convincing the public that you mean what you say.
===
Jeez. He'll be telling us unicorns exist next.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/06/david-cameron-male-bench-ed-miliband
But he didn't seem prepared for a much simpler approach from the Labour leader. Where are the women on your frontbench, demanded Miliband. And the beauty of it was that once the attack was launched, there was nothing much that the prime minister could do about it. As if the window left ajar had seized on its hinge and couldn't quickly be shut again.
There they were on display, an all-male frontbench: 16 middle-aged white men; eight in grey suits, including the prime minister himself, eight in dark blue.
I feel like at least some of them are not on board with the expansion mission. At the least they are not very good at it. It's classic 'I don't like how things are still, therefore no progress has been made', like XR people not accepting at least some good changes have occurred.
And yes, there's still work to be done in this and many areas.
Are they?
Not my usual reading but saw a discussion about Badenoch on Mumsnet. They totally saw through her, particularly on the subject of teaching assistants that she apparently dismissed as useless. They know TAs are often keeping schools together.
But I'd be very happy to see a minority ethnic PM from any party. There are plenty of little girls who saw a woman standing at the world stage in the 80s and felt that meant they could do anything. There'll be plenty of Afro-British and Carribbean-British kids watching the telly if Badenoch goes to the G7 next year and thinking the same. It's churlish to think that's bad, even if I'm still happy to give the Tories a kicking for policies that are xenophobic or disproportionately hurt minority groups.
Tbf- I also laid DUI of the Tiger.
Mordaunt was Minister for Women and Equalities from April 2018 to July 2019. At the start of this period, she was also Secretary of State for International Development, then on 1st May 2019 she left that role and became Secretary of State for Defence.
She was succeeded as Minister for Women and Equalities by Amber Rudd, who had also held the role immediately before Mordaunt. Truss succeeded Rudd, not Mordaunt.
Badenoch was Minister for Equalities, working under Truss. She succeeded Baroness Williams of Trafford, who was appointed at the start of Rudd's first stint as Minister for Women and Equalities and continued to hold the position until 5 months after Truss was appointed.
Although our school stock is so bloody awful - so much glass and concrete, so little ventilation- that may be a choice that's forced on us.
This is a common thread running through most of my arguments about public policy. Being healthy - positively thriving, not just 'not sick', is a solution to so much. It's a solution to funding the NHS and later years care, it's a solution to extending the life of our workforce, it's a solution to dealing with Covid - not just strategies for 'not getting it', but to being robust enough to shrug it off. Perhaps behind spiritual health, physical health is the most important thing that we have.