I was astonished that in trying to help mostly gay children whose childhoods were being destroyed by experimental treatment, I was misrepresented by mischief-makers and their friends in certain media outlets as being anti-LGBT with slurs gleefully retweeted by Labour politicians such as Angela Rayner and Chris Bryant…..
Where was the furore in parliament as these women suffered? A healthy opposition would have pushed government to solve the problem sooner. Instead Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were on the wrong side of the debate, captured by gender-identity ideologues. Notable exceptions, such as MPs Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry, were ostracised by their party leadership who refused to look at the evidence, preferring to posture on social media and chant slogans in parliament
Hopefully Liz will put her in charge of education and weed out all of the gender identity idiots from schools before they do any more damage to our children.
An awful lot of gender identity idiots in education. Would be a generational task.
There are not nearly as many as are thought by the drunken weirdos of the Daily Wail.
But since her stated goal is to fire all TAs and make further curriculum changes, I imagine all teachers whether gender identity idiots or not would very rapidly tread the same path I have done.
So I suppose it would sort of work.
No, that's fair.
But secondary schools are weird. The ones I've visited recently, anyway. They feel like one play being acted on the stage of the other. You talk to teachers, and with very few exceptions they seem as you would hope and expect: professionals keen to deliver a good education. Yet the background to all this is walls plastered with a barrage of material about sexuality and gender identity, with a side order of race. Clearly someone powerful in these schools cares deeply about this sort of thing, and they are proving impossible to face down. And when you hear that three children in a year of 150 are in the process of transitioning, it does lead you to suspect that something odd is going on.
Blame OFSTED, the DfE and various campaigning groups about equally.
Yes, it's clear from the outcomes that there is a powerful pro-trans lobby somewhere in education. It's also clear from you and other teachers I know that the views of this lobby, while they seem to get a lot of prominence, are not representative. It's odd.
People are scared. Refuse to put up Stonewall's posters and they will call OSFTED in, who will say that safeguarding is neglected and students are being discriminated against on gender identity basis. And then put the school in Special Measures. Amid a blaze of local publicity and a hate campaign.
This is what my wife (who works in education) suggested might be the case. I'm surprised it hasn't caused more of an outcry than it has (I.e. none at all.)
So far everyone who likes Truss seems to have been voting Tory anyway. Anyone being converted?
If she leagalises weed and abolishes the monarchy I'd vote for her!
If she proposes that I will vote LD or RefUK for the first time ever at a general election. It would no longer be the Tory Party.
She would lead the party to its worst defeat ever and give Labour and the LDs a landslide victory, the Tories probably even falling behind RefUK led by a resurgent Farage.
Though I can't believe she would be that stupid. It would be Kim Campbell 1993 annihilation
Or Plaid.
I never voted Plaid at a general election and voted for every Tory candidate on the same town council ballot paper
And have berated every other Tory for not being a proper Tory like you. And now here you are saying "if they do x I will have to protest vote against the Tories." Which is quite literally what all the people you berate did...
If the Tory leader does not support the monarchy or the Church of England as the established church the Tory party by definition no longer exists, as those have always been its consistent core principles since the 17th century and still as the Conservative Party since the mid 19th century.
Instead it would just be a libertarian right of centre on economics, socially liberal party if Truss went down that route.
However nationalist patriots would move en masse to RefUK and traditional One Nation Tories would move en masse to the LDs leaving a relic of the old party behind. Truss would have killed the Tories as well as most likely her premiership
I have no problem with you making a principled stand. But your endless railing against other PB Tories for making a principled stand of their own does makes this look rather hypocritical.
No it doesn't as the Tory party still exists for now
Your definition of the Tory party perhaps. It is a statement of supreme arrogance for you to say that your definition is the only valid definition. And if you flounce off there will be Tories making similar statements about you.
No it isn't. The Tory Party was founded in the 17th century to support the monarchy and the Church of England as the established church, those are the key principles it has always had, even when it has put up tax or cut tax, increased spending or cut spending, been protectionist or for free trade, supported gay marriage or section 28, supported going into the EEC or Brexit, supported appeasement or going to war, supported nationalised industries or privatisation.
If it abandoned those 2 key principles, the Tory Party would cease to exist
Lots of things exist which served one function a long time ago but now fulfil a different function. I can accept that there is some affection for the monarchy - that feels right - but is the Conservative Party really that keen on the CofE? It doesn't seem to be a feeling which is reciprocated. The CofE establishment seems to be largely Corbynite.
Yes, I don't think there's very much affection for the Church of England among the average Conservative voter or politician.
Rubbish.
The Conservatives had a 23% lead over Labour amongst Anglicans ahead of the last general election. By contrast Labour led by 4% amongst Roman Catholics, Labour led by 5% amongst those without religion and Labour led by 19% amongst Pentecostals and 9% amongst Greek Orthodox and Labour led by 47% amongst Muslims and by 5% with Hindus. The Tories had a smaller 10% lead amongst Baptists, a 14% lead amongst Methodists and a 14% lead amongst Presbyterians.
Apart from Jews, with whom the Tories led by 29%, Anglicans and members of the Church of England are still the Conservatives staunchest supporters (even if the clergy tend to be more left liberal their congregation generally are not)
None of that proves the average Conservative voter has affection for the C of E. The organisation is completely out of line with Conservative voters' opinions. You have perhaps 2 m people who attend C of E services once a month, compared to 14 m Conservative voters.
Watch that MAGA speech by Kari Lake. She is incredibly good: a natural-born populist politician. She whips up the crowd, and they love her right back
Frightening
"Thrilling" is what I think at least a part of you means?
Yes. Hitler could also be thrilling. He was a great orator in his own florid way. And yet I manage to hold this opinion without being a Nazi, and while wishing Hitler had never existed
Another speaker I find thrilling is the young Hugo Chavez. He has the same quality as Kari Lake: he commands your attention and it is difficult to look away. This is pure charisma. It is rare. Pay attention when you see it
I've watched speeches by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Stalin's style was similar to that of a BBC announcer: "This is the news." Hitler is the one who stands out. What distinguished his style of public speaking was that he spoke as if he was in great emotional pain. His speeches were practically shamanic. Lenin was between the other two. His style was similar to Hitler's, but he operated at a far lower level of skill and intensity. Comparing the two speakers would be like comparing a county-level athlete with a world champion.
Agreed, Hugo Chavez's 1994 speech in Havana was a masterpiece. But I don't know of any speech in the last 50 years by anyone that could top his "por ahora" speech of 1992.
Hitler is TOO flamboyant and hyperbolic for British tastes. But it clearly resonated with a lot of Germans. As Susan Sontag said (IIRC) "he brought Germany to orgasm with his speeches". And it is almost literally true. If you see footage of a famous Hitler speech, the people in the crowd look at him with bright, wet eyes, mesmerised, thrilled, moved, even aroused
Chavez is an intriguing contrast. He's nothing like Hitler but just as "good". That quiet hypnotic intensity. He is erudite without being pompous, his emotions are profound rather than raw
I can't think of a single British politician since Churchill with these skills: great oratory combined with great charisma. Obama could be excellent at his best but again not at this world class standard
It is unfortunate that these talents often seem to be gifted to demagogues rather than democrats
We’re British. We neither do, nor fall for, that sort of thing.
We’re just waiting for someone to find the sweet spot. As Leon says, Hitler was too flamboyant and hyperbolic for our tastes, but see what a self-deprecating buffoon was able to do for a very long time.
Yes. It’s absurdly complacent to believe the British are entirely immune to demagoguery
If a British Hitler or Chavez came along, he or she would have a great sense of humour. The British can forgive almost anything if you make them laugh…
I'm not falling into the trap of saying Nigel Farage is a British equivalent. But that's what one would look like.
He had the choice of any seat in the land, multiple times over, and never came even near to being elected. QED.
Er, along with Boris, Farage dragged the UK out of the EU. Probably the greatest triumph in British political history since World War 2. Not bad for a crackpot from the fringe
And it really was thanks to Farage, and his electoral appeal. Without his party, UKIP, Cameron would never have felt pressured to call a referendum
The fact Farage never made it as an MP in Westminster will be a tiny one line footnote in the History of Britain 1945-now. Brexit will be a whole chapter
You seem to have accidentally spelt disaster as 'triumph'. Autocorrect issue maybe?
Seriously though, Farage's impact on the country has been huge, larger than say TM's for example; you think it was for good, I think for bad.
But... it was only on that one issue, important though it was. Most of his ideas have sunk without trace and he does not wield any power today at all.
He had one job. And he did it, superbly
What else is left? Farage is like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer
Now he flaps in the shallows at the end of history's river, having spawned his Brexit, dying in the sun like the semelparous salmon
So far everyone who likes Truss seems to have been voting Tory anyway. Anyone being converted?
If she leagalises weed and abolishes the monarchy I'd vote for her!
If she proposes that I will vote LD or RefUK for the first time ever at a general election. It would no longer be the Tory Party.
She would lead the party to its worst defeat ever and give Labour and the LDs a landslide victory, the Tories probably even falling behind RefUK led by a resurgent Farage.
Though I can't believe she would be that stupid. It would be Kim Campbell 1993 annihilation
Or Plaid.
I never voted Plaid at a general election and voted for every Tory candidate on the same town council ballot paper
And have berated every other Tory for not being a proper Tory like you. And now here you are saying "if they do x I will have to protest vote against the Tories." Which is quite literally what all the people you berate did...
If the Tory leader does not support the monarchy or the Church of England as the established church the Tory party by definition no longer exists, as those have always been its consistent core principles since the 17th century and still as the Conservative Party since the mid 19th century.
Instead it would just be a libertarian right of centre on economics, socially liberal party if Truss went down that route.
However nationalist patriots would move en masse to RefUK and traditional One Nation Tories would move en masse to the LDs leaving a relic of the old party behind. Truss would have killed the Tories as well as most likely her premiership
I have no problem with you making a principled stand. But your endless railing against other PB Tories for making a principled stand of their own does makes this look rather hypocritical.
No it doesn't as the Tory party still exists for now
Your definition of the Tory party perhaps. It is a statement of supreme arrogance for you to say that your definition is the only valid definition. And if you flounce off there will be Tories making similar statements about you.
No it isn't. The Tory Party was founded in the 17th century to support the monarchy and the Church of England as the established church, those are the key principles it has always had, even when it has put up tax or cut tax, increased spending or cut spending, been protectionist or for free trade, supported gay marriage or section 28, supported going into the EEC or Brexit, supported appeasement or going to war, supported nationalised industries or privatisation.
If it abandoned those 2 key principles, the Tory Party would cease to exist
Lots of things exist which served one function a long time ago but now fulfil a different function. I can accept that there is some affection for the monarchy - that feels right - but is the Conservative Party really that keen on the CofE? It doesn't seem to be a feeling which is reciprocated. The CofE establishment seems to be largely Corbynite.
Yes, I don't think there's very much affection for the Church of England among the average Conservative voter or politician.
Rubbish.
The Conservatives had a 23% lead over Labour amongst Anglicans ahead of the last general election. By contrast Labour led by 4% amongst Roman Catholics, Labour led by 5% amongst those without religion and Labour led by 19% amongst Pentecostals and 9% amongst Greek Orthodox and Labour led by 47% amongst Muslims and by 5% with Hindus. The Tories had a smaller 10% lead amongst Baptists, a 14% lead amongst Methodists and a 14% lead amongst Presbyterians.
Apart from Jews, with whom the Tories led by 29%, Anglicans and members of the Church of England are still the Conservatives staunchest supporters (even if the clergy tend to be more left liberal their congregation generally are not)
I think that may need a distinction between core and fringe Anglicans ie say attendees once per month and the rest. The boundaries of the CofE are very blurred.
I was astonished that in trying to help mostly gay children whose childhoods were being destroyed by experimental treatment, I was misrepresented by mischief-makers and their friends in certain media outlets as being anti-LGBT with slurs gleefully retweeted by Labour politicians such as Angela Rayner and Chris Bryant…..
Where was the furore in parliament as these women suffered? A healthy opposition would have pushed government to solve the problem sooner. Instead Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were on the wrong side of the debate, captured by gender-identity ideologues. Notable exceptions, such as MPs Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry, were ostracised by their party leadership who refused to look at the evidence, preferring to posture on social media and chant slogans in parliament
Hopefully Liz will put her in charge of education and weed out all of the gender identity idiots from schools before they do any more damage to our children.
An awful lot of gender identity idiots in education. Would be a generational task.
There are not nearly as many as are thought by the drunken weirdos of the Daily Wail.
But since her stated goal is to fire all TAs and make further curriculum changes, I imagine all teachers whether gender identity idiots or not would very rapidly tread the same path I have done.
So I suppose it would sort of work.
No, that's fair.
But secondary schools are weird. The ones I've visited recently, anyway. They feel like one play being acted on the stage of the other. You talk to teachers, and with very few exceptions they seem as you would hope and expect: professionals keen to deliver a good education. Yet the background to all this is walls plastered with a barrage of material about sexuality and gender identity, with a side order of race. Clearly someone powerful in these schools cares deeply about this sort of thing, and they are proving impossible to face down. And when you hear that three children in a year of 150 are in the process of transitioning, it does lead you to suspect that something odd is going on.
Blame OFSTED, the DfE and various campaigning groups about equally.
Yes, it's clear from the outcomes that there is a powerful pro-trans lobby somewhere in education. It's also clear from you and other teachers I know that the views of this lobby, while they seem to get a lot of prominence, are not representative. It's odd.
People are scared. Refuse to put up Stonewall's posters and they will call OSFTED in, who will say that safeguarding is neglected and students are being discriminated against on gender identity basis. And then put the school in Special Measures. Amid a blaze of local publicity and a hate campaign.
Evidence? Normally you're sensible, but that's piffle. Can you cite a school that has been put into special measures on safeguarding grounds because of absence of Stonewall posters or discrimination on gender identity grounds? I'd be very surprised if you can. Link to the Ofsted report, please.
No, because they're so frightened of OFSTED nobody will take the risk.
But you are defending about an organisation that recently told a school in Staffordshire that children were watching porn in lessons so they would be placed in special measures.
It took two solid days going through the internet records to prove to the rather dim HMI concerned that the children who had said that were lying.
Fortunately, when one claimed to have been hit by a teacher it only took an hour going through the CCTV to prove that they were not telling the truth, so the inspector who had said the named teachers should be fired looked even stupider than usual.
By which time one of the inspection team had been ordered out of a staff meeting for abusing a teacher and blabbed details of a student's medical record to an entire class as part of a campaign to prove SEND provision was not up to scratch.
And you wonder why people are scared of these utter scum, particularly backed up by the abusive fascists from Stonewall?
I'm not defending Ofsted in the least. But you are confirming that you have no evidence of a school being placed in Special Measures because it didn't display Stonewall posters or due to discrimination on gender identity grounds. That's what your original post was about. What you've posted in response to my comment is irrelevant to your original claim. You're helping to perpetuate an 'anti-woke' myth, that's all. You're better than that.
Watch that MAGA speech by Kari Lake. She is incredibly good: a natural-born populist politician. She whips up the crowd, and they love her right back
Frightening
"Thrilling" is what I think at least a part of you means?
Yes. Hitler could also be thrilling. He was a great orator in his own florid way. And yet I manage to hold this opinion without being a Nazi, and while wishing Hitler had never existed
Another speaker I find thrilling is the young Hugo Chavez. He has the same quality as Kari Lake: he commands your attention and it is difficult to look away. This is pure charisma. It is rare. Pay attention when you see it
I've watched speeches by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Stalin's style was similar to that of a BBC announcer: "This is the news." Hitler is the one who stands out. What distinguished his style of public speaking was that he spoke as if he was in great emotional pain. His speeches were practically shamanic. Lenin was between the other two. His style was similar to Hitler's, but he operated at a far lower level of skill and intensity. Comparing the two speakers would be like comparing a county-level athlete with a world champion.
Agreed, Hugo Chavez's 1994 speech in Havana was a masterpiece. But I don't know of any speech in the last 50 years by anyone that could top his "por ahora" speech of 1992.
Hitler is TOO flamboyant and hyperbolic for British tastes. But it clearly resonated with a lot of Germans. As Susan Sontag said (IIRC) "he brought Germany to orgasm with his speeches". And it is almost literally true. If you see footage of a famous Hitler speech, the people in the crowd look at him with bright, wet eyes, mesmerised, thrilled, moved, even aroused
Chavez is an intriguing contrast. He's nothing like Hitler but just as "good". That quiet hypnotic intensity. He is erudite without being pompous, his emotions are profound rather than raw
I can't think of a single British politician since Churchill with these skills: great oratory combined with great charisma. Obama could be excellent at his best but again not at this world class standard
It is unfortunate that these talents often seem to be gifted to demagogues rather than democrats
We’re British. We neither do, nor fall for, that sort of thing.
We’re just waiting for someone to find the sweet spot. As Leon says, Hitler was too flamboyant and hyperbolic for our tastes, but see what a self-deprecating buffoon was able to do for a very long time.
Yes. It’s absurdly complacent to believe the British are entirely immune to demagoguery
If a British Hitler or Chavez came along, he or she would have a great sense of humour. The British can forgive almost anything if you make them laugh…
I'm not falling into the trap of saying Nigel Farage is a British equivalent. But that's what one would look like.
He had the choice of any seat in the land, multiple times over, and never came even near to being elected. QED.
Er, along with Boris, Farage dragged the UK out of the EU. Probably the greatest triumph in British political history since World War 2. Not bad for a crackpot from the fringe
And it really was thanks to Farage, and his electoral appeal. Without his party, UKIP, Cameron would never have felt pressured to call a referendum
The fact Farage never made it as an MP in Westminster will be a tiny one line footnote in the History of Britain 1945-now. Brexit will be a whole chapter
You seem to have accidentally spelt disaster as 'triumph'. Autocorrect issue maybe?
Seriously though, Farage's impact on the country has been huge, larger than say TM's for example; you think it was for good, I think for bad.
But... it was only on that one issue, important though it was. Most of his ideas have sunk without trace and he does not wield any power today at all.
It is correct that he's had this huge, disastrous, impact, though. A very successful but one-hit chancer, like a sort of catastrophic Worzels for the nation, who will now only ever really achieve the same impact later on in life on the nostalgia circuit, possibly with a superannuated Ed Sheeran.
One day there will be a 20 foot high titanium statue of Nigel Farage in every town and village in the land. On Brexit Day troops of happy children will lay nosegays and garlands at his titanium feet, giving thanks for Leave. And much singing will be heard across the happy realm, carolling out the words; for this it, our Brexit Day, this is why we feast, in freedom
I was astonished that in trying to help mostly gay children whose childhoods were being destroyed by experimental treatment, I was misrepresented by mischief-makers and their friends in certain media outlets as being anti-LGBT with slurs gleefully retweeted by Labour politicians such as Angela Rayner and Chris Bryant…..
Where was the furore in parliament as these women suffered? A healthy opposition would have pushed government to solve the problem sooner. Instead Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were on the wrong side of the debate, captured by gender-identity ideologues. Notable exceptions, such as MPs Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry, were ostracised by their party leadership who refused to look at the evidence, preferring to posture on social media and chant slogans in parliament
Hopefully Liz will put her in charge of education and weed out all of the gender identity idiots from schools before they do any more damage to our children.
An awful lot of gender identity idiots in education. Would be a generational task.
There are not nearly as many as are thought by the drunken weirdos of the Daily Wail.
But since her stated goal is to fire all TAs and make further curriculum changes, I imagine all teachers whether gender identity idiots or not would very rapidly tread the same path I have done.
So I suppose it would sort of work.
No, that's fair.
But secondary schools are weird. The ones I've visited recently, anyway. They feel like one play being acted on the stage of the other. You talk to teachers, and with very few exceptions they seem as you would hope and expect: professionals keen to deliver a good education. Yet the background to all this is walls plastered with a barrage of material about sexuality and gender identity, with a side order of race. Clearly someone powerful in these schools cares deeply about this sort of thing, and they are proving impossible to face down. And when you hear that three children in a year of 150 are in the process of transitioning, it does lead you to suspect that something odd is going on.
Blame OFSTED, the DfE and various campaigning groups about equally.
Yes, it's clear from the outcomes that there is a powerful pro-trans lobby somewhere in education. It's also clear from you and other teachers I know that the views of this lobby, while they seem to get a lot of prominence, are not representative. It's odd.
People are scared. Refuse to put up Stonewall's posters and they will call OSFTED in, who will say that safeguarding is neglected and students are being discriminated against on gender identity basis. And then put the school in Special Measures. Amid a blaze of local publicity and a hate campaign.
This is what my wife (who works in education) suggested might be the case. I'm surprised it hasn't caused more of an outcry than it has (I.e. none at all.)
Perhaps because it isn't true?
Well the next most obvious explanation of the situation is that the schools themselves genuinely see issues of gender and sexuality as the most important issue facing the school and its children.
I was astonished that in trying to help mostly gay children whose childhoods were being destroyed by experimental treatment, I was misrepresented by mischief-makers and their friends in certain media outlets as being anti-LGBT with slurs gleefully retweeted by Labour politicians such as Angela Rayner and Chris Bryant…..
Where was the furore in parliament as these women suffered? A healthy opposition would have pushed government to solve the problem sooner. Instead Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were on the wrong side of the debate, captured by gender-identity ideologues. Notable exceptions, such as MPs Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry, were ostracised by their party leadership who refused to look at the evidence, preferring to posture on social media and chant slogans in parliament
Hopefully Liz will put her in charge of education and weed out all of the gender identity idiots from schools before they do any more damage to our children.
An awful lot of gender identity idiots in education. Would be a generational task.
There are not nearly as many as are thought by the drunken weirdos of the Daily Wail.
But since her stated goal is to fire all TAs and make further curriculum changes, I imagine all teachers whether gender identity idiots or not would very rapidly tread the same path I have done.
So I suppose it would sort of work.
No, that's fair.
But secondary schools are weird. The ones I've visited recently, anyway. They feel like one play being acted on the stage of the other. You talk to teachers, and with very few exceptions they seem as you would hope and expect: professionals keen to deliver a good education. Yet the background to all this is walls plastered with a barrage of material about sexuality and gender identity, with a side order of race. Clearly someone powerful in these schools cares deeply about this sort of thing, and they are proving impossible to face down. And when you hear that three children in a year of 150 are in the process of transitioning, it does lead you to suspect that something odd is going on.
Blame OFSTED, the DfE and various campaigning groups about equally.
Yes, it's clear from the outcomes that there is a powerful pro-trans lobby somewhere in education. It's also clear from you and other teachers I know that the views of this lobby, while they seem to get a lot of prominence, are not representative. It's odd.
People are scared. Refuse to put up Stonewall's posters and they will call OSFTED in, who will say that safeguarding is neglected and students are being discriminated against on gender identity basis. And then put the school in Special Measures. Amid a blaze of local publicity and a hate campaign.
TBH, we really need someone like General Franco in charge, to sort this stuff out.
yes, the country is crying out for some good old fashioned repression.
Sean F's shtick is that he's only joking with all the shoot the commies stuff when he only wants them beaten up and imprisoned. Seems to be a bit more authentically het up when it comes to Sinn Fein mind..
Watch that MAGA speech by Kari Lake. She is incredibly good: a natural-born populist politician. She whips up the crowd, and they love her right back
Frightening
"Thrilling" is what I think at least a part of you means?
Yes. Hitler could also be thrilling. He was a great orator in his own florid way. And yet I manage to hold this opinion without being a Nazi, and while wishing Hitler had never existed
Another speaker I find thrilling is the young Hugo Chavez. He has the same quality as Kari Lake: he commands your attention and it is difficult to look away. This is pure charisma. It is rare. Pay attention when you see it
I've watched speeches by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Stalin's style was similar to that of a BBC announcer: "This is the news." Hitler is the one who stands out. What distinguished his style of public speaking was that he spoke as if he was in great emotional pain. His speeches were practically shamanic. Lenin was between the other two. His style was similar to Hitler's, but he operated at a far lower level of skill and intensity. Comparing the two speakers would be like comparing a county-level athlete with a world champion.
Agreed, Hugo Chavez's 1994 speech in Havana was a masterpiece. But I don't know of any speech in the last 50 years by anyone that could top his "por ahora" speech of 1992.
Hitler is TOO flamboyant and hyperbolic for British tastes. But it clearly resonated with a lot of Germans. As Susan Sontag said (IIRC) "he brought Germany to orgasm with his speeches". And it is almost literally true. If you see footage of a famous Hitler speech, the people in the crowd look at him with bright, wet eyes, mesmerised, thrilled, moved, even aroused
Chavez is an intriguing contrast. He's nothing like Hitler but just as "good". That quiet hypnotic intensity. He is erudite without being pompous, his emotions are profound rather than raw
I can't think of a single British politician since Churchill with these skills: great oratory combined with great charisma. Obama could be excellent at his best but again not at this world class standard
It is unfortunate that these talents often seem to be gifted to demagogues rather than democrats
I had a friend at university who would give speeches in half-remembered schoolboy German in the style of Hitler:
Ich habe [muffled sob, look of disappointment] ... keine ... Geschwister...[look of resolute determination, cranks up volume]... aber ... ICH HABE EINEN HUND!
One day there will be a 20 foot high titanium statue of Nigel Farage in every town and village in the land. On Brexit Day troops of happy children will lay nosegays and garlands at his titanium feet, giving thanks for Leave. And much singing will be heard across the happy realm, carolling out the words; for this it, our Brexit Day, this is why we feast, in freedom
Church Bells will peal out every year on his birthday. Girls in Red Wall areas of the country will be handed the name Nigella Annunciata, in his honour. Lanterns will be lit, lasting a thousand years.
Niiigel, Nig-el Far-age, Everyone Loves Your Cords!
Niiigel, Ni-gel Far-age, Thanks For Stopping the Hordes!
Thar's what our smiling, rosy-cheeked children will sing, on this:
the Feast of Leave.
And Brexit Day shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered, with our cheers We few, we happy few, we band of Brexiteers
So what, his family did not launch 9/11, Osama did
The future king agreed to the donation despite the objections of advisers at the Clarence House and the Prince of Wales Charitable Foundation (PWCF), where the money was ultimately deposited.
According to sources, several of Charles’s advisers, including at least one trustee, pleaded with him in person to return the money.
One of his household staff said it would cause national outrage if the news leaked to the media. They told the prince that “it would not be good for anybody” if it emerged that he had accepted money from the family of the perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack in history.
A second adviser also urged the prince to return the money. They told the prince he would suffer serious reputational damage if his name appeared in the same sentence as the terrorist, who was responsible for the murder of 67 Britons alongside thousands of Americans on 9/11.
One source said: “The fact that a member of the highest level of the British establishment was choosing to broker deals with a name and a family that not only rang alarm bells, but abject horror around the world . . . why would you do this? What good reason is there to do this?”
The Bin Laden family disowned Osama as early as 1994 and the Saudi government revoked his passport. But don't let the facts get in the way of you and the Murdoch owned Times' rant
I was astonished that in trying to help mostly gay children whose childhoods were being destroyed by experimental treatment, I was misrepresented by mischief-makers and their friends in certain media outlets as being anti-LGBT with slurs gleefully retweeted by Labour politicians such as Angela Rayner and Chris Bryant…..
Where was the furore in parliament as these women suffered? A healthy opposition would have pushed government to solve the problem sooner. Instead Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were on the wrong side of the debate, captured by gender-identity ideologues. Notable exceptions, such as MPs Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry, were ostracised by their party leadership who refused to look at the evidence, preferring to posture on social media and chant slogans in parliament
Hopefully Liz will put her in charge of education and weed out all of the gender identity idiots from schools before they do any more damage to our children.
An awful lot of gender identity idiots in education. Would be a generational task.
There are not nearly as many as are thought by the drunken weirdos of the Daily Wail.
But since her stated goal is to fire all TAs and make further curriculum changes, I imagine all teachers whether gender identity idiots or not would very rapidly tread the same path I have done.
So I suppose it would sort of work.
No, that's fair.
But secondary schools are weird. The ones I've visited recently, anyway. They feel like one play being acted on the stage of the other. You talk to teachers, and with very few exceptions they seem as you would hope and expect: professionals keen to deliver a good education. Yet the background to all this is walls plastered with a barrage of material about sexuality and gender identity, with a side order of race. Clearly someone powerful in these schools cares deeply about this sort of thing, and they are proving impossible to face down. And when you hear that three children in a year of 150 are in the process of transitioning, it does lead you to suspect that something odd is going on.
Blame OFSTED, the DfE and various campaigning groups about equally.
Yes, it's clear from the outcomes that there is a powerful pro-trans lobby somewhere in education. It's also clear from you and other teachers I know that the views of this lobby, while they seem to get a lot of prominence, are not representative. It's odd.
People are scared. Refuse to put up Stonewall's posters and they will call OSFTED in, who will say that safeguarding is neglected and students are being discriminated against on gender identity basis. And then put the school in Special Measures. Amid a blaze of local publicity and a hate campaign.
Evidence? Normally you're sensible, but that's piffle. Can you cite a school that has been put into special measures on safeguarding grounds because of absence of Stonewall posters or discrimination on gender identity grounds? I'd be very surprised if you can. Link to the Ofsted report, please.
No, because they're so frightened of OFSTED nobody will take the risk.
But you are defending about an organisation that recently told a school in Staffordshire that children were watching porn in lessons so they would be placed in special measures.
It took two solid days going through the internet records to prove to the rather dim HMI concerned that the children who had said that were lying.
Fortunately, when one claimed to have been hit by a teacher it only took an hour going through the CCTV to prove that they were not telling the truth, so the inspector who had said the named teachers should be fired looked even stupider than usual.
By which time one of the inspection team had been ordered out of a staff meeting for abusing a teacher and blabbed details of a student's medical record to an entire class as part of a campaign to prove SEND provision was not up to scratch.
And you wonder why people are scared of these utter scum, particularly backed up by the abusive fascists from Stonewall?
I'm not defending Ofsted in the least. But you are confirming that you have no evidence of a school being placed in Special Measures because it didn't display Stonewall posters or due to discrimination on gender identity grounds. That's what your original post was about. What you've posted in response to my comment is irrelevant to your original claim. You're helping to perpetuate an 'anti-woke' myth, that's all. You're better than that.
That's the threat, and that's the situation if the threat were made reality. OFSTED is a very dangerous organisation run by safeguarding risks and idiots that nobody wants anything to do with. And that is why people do not dare argue or resist. Not all have the resilience of JK Rowling.
That being said, I have never seen a school where they 'plaster the walls.' A couple of display boards, perhaps. They never made it in to my classrooms for the simple reason I had far better things to show on notice boards. Starting with the childrens' work.
So far everyone who likes Truss seems to have been voting Tory anyway. Anyone being converted?
If she leagalises weed and abolishes the monarchy I'd vote for her!
If she proposes that I will vote LD or RefUK for the first time ever at a general election. It would no longer be the Tory Party.
She would lead the party to its worst defeat ever and give Labour and the LDs a landslide victory, the Tories probably even falling behind RefUK led by a resurgent Farage.
Though I can't believe she would be that stupid. It would be Kim Campbell 1993 annihilation
Or Plaid.
I never voted Plaid at a general election and voted for every Tory candidate on the same town council ballot paper
And have berated every other Tory for not being a proper Tory like you. And now here you are saying "if they do x I will have to protest vote against the Tories." Which is quite literally what all the people you berate did...
If the Tory leader does not support the monarchy or the Church of England as the established church the Tory party by definition no longer exists, as those have always been its consistent core principles since the 17th century and still as the Conservative Party since the mid 19th century.
Instead it would just be a libertarian right of centre on economics, socially liberal party if Truss went down that route.
However nationalist patriots would move en masse to RefUK and traditional One Nation Tories would move en masse to the LDs leaving a relic of the old party behind. Truss would have killed the Tories as well as most likely her premiership
I have no problem with you making a principled stand. But your endless railing against other PB Tories for making a principled stand of their own does makes this look rather hypocritical.
No it doesn't as the Tory party still exists for now
Your definition of the Tory party perhaps. It is a statement of supreme arrogance for you to say that your definition is the only valid definition. And if you flounce off there will be Tories making similar statements about you.
No it isn't. The Tory Party was founded in the 17th century to support the monarchy and the Church of England as the established church, those are the key principles it has always had, even when it has put up tax or cut tax, increased spending or cut spending, been protectionist or for free trade, supported gay marriage or section 28, supported going into the EEC or Brexit, supported appeasement or going to war, supported nationalised industries or privatisation.
If it abandoned those 2 key principles, the Tory Party would cease to exist
Lots of things exist which served one function a long time ago but now fulfil a different function. I can accept that there is some affection for the monarchy - that feels right - but is the Conservative Party really that keen on the CofE? It doesn't seem to be a feeling which is reciprocated. The CofE establishment seems to be largely Corbynite.
Yes, I don't think there's very much affection for the Church of England among the average Conservative voter or politician.
But, when you look at the institution, its history, its pastural presence and what it (theologically) officially advocates - there should be.
One day there will be a 20 foot high titanium statue of Nigel Farage in every town and village in the land. On Brexit Day troops of happy children will lay nosegays and garlands at his titanium feet, giving thanks for Leave. And much singing will be heard across the happy realm, carolling out the words; for this it, our Brexit Day, this is why we feast, in freedom
Church Bells will peal out every year on his birthday. Girls in Red Wall areas of the country will be given the name Nigella Annunciata in his honour. Lanterns will be lit, lasting a thousand years.
Just rejoice at this thought. Rejoice. We have Brexited
One day there will be a 20 foot high titanium statue of Nigel Farage in every town and village in the land. On Brexit Day troops of happy children will lay nosegays and garlands at his titanium feet, giving thanks for Leave. And much singing will be heard across the happy realm, carolling out the words; for this it, our Brexit Day, this is why we feast, in freedom
I'm not convinced. More and more people are saying it was a mistake. There is still no clear vision of what we are going to do with the new freedoms we've gained and the pro-Brexit politicians remain deeply unimpressive as a whole. We don't have to follow the rules but we're going to keep copying them anyway because that makes life easier. Oh and Northern Ireland. Still no answer there. Finally and I say this with a somewhat heavy heart it may be that the younger generation may be more concerned with the benefits of a consumer lifestyle rather than notions of sovereignty or even democracy.
So far everyone who likes Truss seems to have been voting Tory anyway. Anyone being converted?
If she leagalises weed and abolishes the monarchy I'd vote for her!
If she proposes that I will vote LD or RefUK for the first time ever at a general election. It would no longer be the Tory Party.
She would lead the party to its worst defeat ever and give Labour and the LDs a landslide victory, the Tories probably even falling behind RefUK led by a resurgent Farage.
Though I can't believe she would be that stupid. It would be Kim Campbell 1993 annihilation
Or Plaid.
I never voted Plaid at a general election and voted for every Tory candidate on the same town council ballot paper
And have berated every other Tory for not being a proper Tory like you. And now here you are saying "if they do x I will have to protest vote against the Tories." Which is quite literally what all the people you berate did...
If the Tory leader does not support the monarchy or the Church of England as the established church the Tory party by definition no longer exists, as those have always been its consistent core principles since the 17th century and still as the Conservative Party since the mid 19th century.
Instead it would just be a libertarian right of centre on economics, socially liberal party if Truss went down that route.
However nationalist patriots would move en masse to RefUK and traditional One Nation Tories would move en masse to the LDs leaving a relic of the old party behind. Truss would have killed the Tories as well as most likely her premiership
I have no problem with you making a principled stand. But your endless railing against other PB Tories for making a principled stand of their own does makes this look rather hypocritical.
No it doesn't as the Tory party still exists for now
Your definition of the Tory party perhaps. It is a statement of supreme arrogance for you to say that your definition is the only valid definition. And if you flounce off there will be Tories making similar statements about you.
No it isn't. The Tory Party was founded in the 17th century to support the monarchy and the Church of England as the established church, those are the key principles it has always had, even when it has put up tax or cut tax, increased spending or cut spending, been protectionist or for free trade, supported gay marriage or section 28, supported going into the EEC or Brexit, supported appeasement or going to war, supported nationalised industries or privatisation.
If it abandoned those 2 key principles, the Tory Party would cease to exist
Lots of things exist which served one function a long time ago but now fulfil a different function. I can accept that there is some affection for the monarchy - that feels right - but is the Conservative Party really that keen on the CofE? It doesn't seem to be a feeling which is reciprocated. The CofE establishment seems to be largely Corbynite.
Yes, I don't think there's very much affection for the Church of England among the average Conservative voter or politician.
Rubbish.
The Conservatives had a 23% lead over Labour amongst Anglicans ahead of the last general election. By contrast Labour led by 4% amongst Roman Catholics, Labour led by 5% amongst those without religion and Labour led by 19% amongst Pentecostals and 9% amongst Greek Orthodox and Labour led by 47% amongst Muslims and by 5% with Hindus. The Tories had a smaller 10% lead amongst Baptists, a 14% lead amongst Methodists and a 14% lead amongst Presbyterians.
Apart from Jews, with whom the Tories led by 29%, Anglicans and members of the Church of England are still the Conservatives staunchest supporters (even if the clergy tend to be more left liberal their congregation generally are not)
None of that proves the average Conservative voter has affection for the C of E. The organisation is completely out of line with Conservative voters' opinions. You have perhaps 2 m people who attend C of E services once a month, compared to 14 m Conservative voters.
On what? Most Anglicans voted for Brexit, most Anglicans vote Tory. The last time most didn't was in 1997 when Blair crushed the Tories in a landslide.
If you want to disown Anglicans and the Church of England then you won't have many if any Conservative voters left at the next general election. The Tories would be annihilated as they were in 1997.
Already the Tory vote is about 10% down on 2019, you don't alienate your core vote!
Watch that MAGA speech by Kari Lake. She is incredibly good: a natural-born populist politician. She whips up the crowd, and they love her right back
Frightening
"Thrilling" is what I think at least a part of you means?
Yes. Hitler could also be thrilling. He was a great orator in his own florid way. And yet I manage to hold this opinion without being a Nazi, and while wishing Hitler had never existed
Another speaker I find thrilling is the young Hugo Chavez. He has the same quality as Kari Lake: he commands your attention and it is difficult to look away. This is pure charisma. It is rare. Pay attention when you see it
I've watched speeches by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Stalin's style was similar to that of a BBC announcer: "This is the news." Hitler is the one who stands out. What distinguished his style of public speaking was that he spoke as if he was in great emotional pain. His speeches were practically shamanic. Lenin was between the other two. His style was similar to Hitler's, but he operated at a far lower level of skill and intensity. Comparing the two speakers would be like comparing a county-level athlete with a world champion.
Agreed, Hugo Chavez's 1994 speech in Havana was a masterpiece. But I don't know of any speech in the last 50 years by anyone that could top his "por ahora" speech of 1992.
Hitler is TOO flamboyant and hyperbolic for British tastes. But it clearly resonated with a lot of Germans. As Susan Sontag said (IIRC) "he brought Germany to orgasm with his speeches". And it is almost literally true. If you see footage of a famous Hitler speech, the people in the crowd look at him with bright, wet eyes, mesmerised, thrilled, moved, even aroused
Chavez is an intriguing contrast. He's nothing like Hitler but just as "good". That quiet hypnotic intensity. He is erudite without being pompous, his emotions are profound rather than raw
I can't think of a single British politician since Churchill with these skills: great oratory combined with great charisma. Obama could be excellent at his best but again not at this world class standard
It is unfortunate that these talents often seem to be gifted to demagogues rather than democrats
We’re British. We neither do, nor fall for, that sort of thing.
We’re just waiting for someone to find the sweet spot. As Leon says, Hitler was too flamboyant and hyperbolic for our tastes, but see what a self-deprecating buffoon was able to do for a very long time.
Yes. It’s absurdly complacent to believe the British are entirely immune to demagoguery
If a British Hitler or Chavez came along, he or she would have a great sense of humour. The British can forgive almost anything if you make them laugh…
I'm not falling into the trap of saying Nigel Farage is a British equivalent. But that's what one would look like.
He had the choice of any seat in the land, multiple times over, and never came even near to being elected. QED.
Er, along with Boris, Farage dragged the UK out of the EU. Probably the greatest triumph in British political history since World War 2. Not bad for a crackpot from the fringe
And it really was thanks to Farage, and his electoral appeal. Without his party, UKIP, Cameron would never have felt pressured to call a referendum
The fact Farage never made it as an MP in Westminster will be a tiny one line footnote in the History of Britain 1945-now. Brexit will be a whole chapter
I think Farage has a genuine grievance at not being honoured.
Whatever you think of him and his politics he's a totemical figure of the last 30 years.
Watch that MAGA speech by Kari Lake. She is incredibly good: a natural-born populist politician. She whips up the crowd, and they love her right back
Frightening
"Thrilling" is what I think at least a part of you means?
Yes. Hitler could also be thrilling. He was a great orator in his own florid way. And yet I manage to hold this opinion without being a Nazi, and while wishing Hitler had never existed
Another speaker I find thrilling is the young Hugo Chavez. He has the same quality as Kari Lake: he commands your attention and it is difficult to look away. This is pure charisma. It is rare. Pay attention when you see it
I've watched speeches by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Stalin's style was similar to that of a BBC announcer: "This is the news." Hitler is the one who stands out. What distinguished his style of public speaking was that he spoke as if he was in great emotional pain. His speeches were practically shamanic. Lenin was between the other two. His style was similar to Hitler's, but he operated at a far lower level of skill and intensity. Comparing the two speakers would be like comparing a county-level athlete with a world champion.
Agreed, Hugo Chavez's 1994 speech in Havana was a masterpiece. But I don't know of any speech in the last 50 years by anyone that could top his "por ahora" speech of 1992.
Hitler is TOO flamboyant and hyperbolic for British tastes. But it clearly resonated with a lot of Germans. As Susan Sontag said (IIRC) "he brought Germany to orgasm with his speeches". And it is almost literally true. If you see footage of a famous Hitler speech, the people in the crowd look at him with bright, wet eyes, mesmerised, thrilled, moved, even aroused
Chavez is an intriguing contrast. He's nothing like Hitler but just as "good". That quiet hypnotic intensity. He is erudite without being pompous, his emotions are profound rather than raw
I can't think of a single British politician since Churchill with these skills: great oratory combined with great charisma. Obama could be excellent at his best but again not at this world class standard
It is unfortunate that these talents often seem to be gifted to demagogues rather than democrats
We’re British. We neither do, nor fall for, that sort of thing.
We’re just waiting for someone to find the sweet spot. As Leon says, Hitler was too flamboyant and hyperbolic for our tastes, but see what a self-deprecating buffoon was able to do for a very long time.
Yes. It’s absurdly complacent to believe the British are entirely immune to demagoguery
If a British Hitler or Chavez came along, he or she would have a great sense of humour. The British can forgive almost anything if you make them laugh…
I'm not falling into the trap of saying Nigel Farage is a British equivalent. But that's what one would look like.
He had the choice of any seat in the land, multiple times over, and never came even near to being elected. QED.
Er, along with Boris, Farage dragged the UK out of the EU. Probably the greatest triumph in British political history since World War 2. Not bad for a crackpot from the fringe
And it really was thanks to Farage, and his electoral appeal. Without his party, UKIP, Cameron would never have felt pressured to call a referendum
The fact Farage never made it as an MP in Westminster will be a tiny one line footnote in the History of Britain 1945-now. Brexit will be a whole chapter
You seem to have accidentally spelt disaster as 'triumph'. Autocorrect issue maybe?
Seriously though, Farage's impact on the country has been huge, larger than say TM's for example; you think it was for good, I think for bad.
But... it was only on that one issue, important though it was. Most of his ideas have sunk without trace and he does not wield any power today at all.
He had one job. And he did it, superbly
What else is left? Farage is like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer
Now he flaps in the shallows at the end of history's river, having spawned his Brexit, dying in the sun like the semelparous salmon
What I do is me; for that I came
Thankfully, all his other beliefs have gained no traction whatsoever.
Watch that MAGA speech by Kari Lake. She is incredibly good: a natural-born populist politician. She whips up the crowd, and they love her right back
Frightening
"Thrilling" is what I think at least a part of you means?
Yes. Hitler could also be thrilling. He was a great orator in his own florid way. And yet I manage to hold this opinion without being a Nazi, and while wishing Hitler had never existed
Another speaker I find thrilling is the young Hugo Chavez. He has the same quality as Kari Lake: he commands your attention and it is difficult to look away. This is pure charisma. It is rare. Pay attention when you see it
I've watched speeches by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Stalin's style was similar to that of a BBC announcer: "This is the news." Hitler is the one who stands out. What distinguished his style of public speaking was that he spoke as if he was in great emotional pain. His speeches were practically shamanic. Lenin was between the other two. His style was similar to Hitler's, but he operated at a far lower level of skill and intensity. Comparing the two speakers would be like comparing a county-level athlete with a world champion.
Agreed, Hugo Chavez's 1994 speech in Havana was a masterpiece. But I don't know of any speech in the last 50 years by anyone that could top his "por ahora" speech of 1992.
Hitler is TOO flamboyant and hyperbolic for British tastes. But it clearly resonated with a lot of Germans. As Susan Sontag said (IIRC) "he brought Germany to orgasm with his speeches". And it is almost literally true. If you see footage of a famous Hitler speech, the people in the crowd look at him with bright, wet eyes, mesmerised, thrilled, moved, even aroused
Chavez is an intriguing contrast. He's nothing like Hitler but just as "good". That quiet hypnotic intensity. He is erudite without being pompous, his emotions are profound rather than raw
I can't think of a single British politician since Churchill with these skills: great oratory combined with great charisma. Obama could be excellent at his best but again not at this world class standard
It is unfortunate that these talents often seem to be gifted to demagogues rather than democrats
We’re British. We neither do, nor fall for, that sort of thing.
We’re just waiting for someone to find the sweet spot. As Leon says, Hitler was too flamboyant and hyperbolic for our tastes, but see what a self-deprecating buffoon was able to do for a very long time.
Yes. It’s absurdly complacent to believe the British are entirely immune to demagoguery
If a British Hitler or Chavez came along, he or she would have a great sense of humour. The British can forgive almost anything if you make them laugh…
I'm not falling into the trap of saying Nigel Farage is a British equivalent. But that's what one would look like.
He had the choice of any seat in the land, multiple times over, and never came even near to being elected. QED.
Er, along with Boris, Farage dragged the UK out of the EU. Probably the greatest triumph in British political history since World War 2. Not bad for a crackpot from the fringe
And it really was thanks to Farage, and his electoral appeal. Without his party, UKIP, Cameron would never have felt pressured to call a referendum
The fact Farage never made it as an MP in Westminster will be a tiny one line footnote in the History of Britain 1945-now. Brexit will be a whole chapter
I think Farage has a genuine grievance at not being honoured.
Whatever you think of him and his politics he's a totemical figure of the last 30 years.
He should be a royal duke, at the very least. Quite frankly I'd make him a living saint, he must be close to canonisation already
Watch that MAGA speech by Kari Lake. She is incredibly good: a natural-born populist politician. She whips up the crowd, and they love her right back
Frightening
"Thrilling" is what I think at least a part of you means?
Yes. Hitler could also be thrilling. He was a great orator in his own florid way. And yet I manage to hold this opinion without being a Nazi, and while wishing Hitler had never existed
Another speaker I find thrilling is the young Hugo Chavez. He has the same quality as Kari Lake: he commands your attention and it is difficult to look away. This is pure charisma. It is rare. Pay attention when you see it
I've watched speeches by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Stalin's style was similar to that of a BBC announcer: "This is the news." Hitler is the one who stands out. What distinguished his style of public speaking was that he spoke as if he was in great emotional pain. His speeches were practically shamanic. Lenin was between the other two. His style was similar to Hitler's, but he operated at a far lower level of skill and intensity. Comparing the two speakers would be like comparing a county-level athlete with a world champion.
Agreed, Hugo Chavez's 1994 speech in Havana was a masterpiece. But I don't know of any speech in the last 50 years by anyone that could top his "por ahora" speech of 1992.
Hitler is TOO flamboyant and hyperbolic for British tastes. But it clearly resonated with a lot of Germans. As Susan Sontag said (IIRC) "he brought Germany to orgasm with his speeches". And it is almost literally true. If you see footage of a famous Hitler speech, the people in the crowd look at him with bright, wet eyes, mesmerised, thrilled, moved, even aroused
Chavez is an intriguing contrast. He's nothing like Hitler but just as "good". That quiet hypnotic intensity. He is erudite without being pompous, his emotions are profound rather than raw
I can't think of a single British politician since Churchill with these skills: great oratory combined with great charisma. Obama could be excellent at his best but again not at this world class standard
It is unfortunate that these talents often seem to be gifted to demagogues rather than democrats
We’re British. We neither do, nor fall for, that sort of thing.
We’re just waiting for someone to find the sweet spot. As Leon says, Hitler was too flamboyant and hyperbolic for our tastes, but see what a self-deprecating buffoon was able to do for a very long time.
Yes. It’s absurdly complacent to believe the British are entirely immune to demagoguery
If a British Hitler or Chavez came along, he or she would have a great sense of humour. The British can forgive almost anything if you make them laugh…
I'm not falling into the trap of saying Nigel Farage is a British equivalent. But that's what one would look like.
He had the choice of any seat in the land, multiple times over, and never came even near to being elected. QED.
Er, along with Boris, Farage dragged the UK out of the EU. Probably the greatest triumph in British political history since World War 2. Not bad for a crackpot from the fringe
And it really was thanks to Farage, and his electoral appeal. Without his party, UKIP, Cameron would never have felt pressured to call a referendum
The fact Farage never made it as an MP in Westminster will be a tiny one line footnote in the History of Britain 1945-now. Brexit will be a whole chapter
You seem to have accidentally spelt disaster as 'triumph'. Autocorrect issue maybe?
Seriously though, Farage's impact on the country has been huge, larger than say TM's for example; you think it was for good, I think for bad.
But... it was only on that one issue, important though it was. Most of his ideas have sunk without trace and he does not wield any power today at all.
He had one job. And he did it, superbly
What else is left? Farage is like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer
Now he flaps in the shallows at the end of history's river, having spawned his Brexit, dying in the sun like the semelparous salmon
What I do is me; for that I came
Thankfully, all his other beliefs have gained no traction whatsoever.
Watch that MAGA speech by Kari Lake. She is incredibly good: a natural-born populist politician. She whips up the crowd, and they love her right back
Frightening
"Thrilling" is what I think at least a part of you means?
Yes. Hitler could also be thrilling. He was a great orator in his own florid way. And yet I manage to hold this opinion without being a Nazi, and while wishing Hitler had never existed
Another speaker I find thrilling is the young Hugo Chavez. He has the same quality as Kari Lake: he commands your attention and it is difficult to look away. This is pure charisma. It is rare. Pay attention when you see it
I've watched speeches by Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Stalin's style was similar to that of a BBC announcer: "This is the news." Hitler is the one who stands out. What distinguished his style of public speaking was that he spoke as if he was in great emotional pain. His speeches were practically shamanic. Lenin was between the other two. His style was similar to Hitler's, but he operated at a far lower level of skill and intensity. Comparing the two speakers would be like comparing a county-level athlete with a world champion.
Agreed, Hugo Chavez's 1994 speech in Havana was a masterpiece. But I don't know of any speech in the last 50 years by anyone that could top his "por ahora" speech of 1992.
Hitler is TOO flamboyant and hyperbolic for British tastes. But it clearly resonated with a lot of Germans. As Susan Sontag said (IIRC) "he brought Germany to orgasm with his speeches". And it is almost literally true. If you see footage of a famous Hitler speech, the people in the crowd look at him with bright, wet eyes, mesmerised, thrilled, moved, even aroused
Chavez is an intriguing contrast. He's nothing like Hitler but just as "good". That quiet hypnotic intensity. He is erudite without being pompous, his emotions are profound rather than raw
I can't think of a single British politician since Churchill with these skills: great oratory combined with great charisma. Obama could be excellent at his best but again not at this world class standard
It is unfortunate that these talents often seem to be gifted to demagogues rather than democrats
We’re British. We neither do, nor fall for, that sort of thing.
We’re just waiting for someone to find the sweet spot. As Leon says, Hitler was too flamboyant and hyperbolic for our tastes, but see what a self-deprecating buffoon was able to do for a very long time.
Yes. It’s absurdly complacent to believe the British are entirely immune to demagoguery
If a British Hitler or Chavez came along, he or she would have a great sense of humour. The British can forgive almost anything if you make them laugh…
I'm not falling into the trap of saying Nigel Farage is a British equivalent. But that's what one would look like.
He had the choice of any seat in the land, multiple times over, and never came even near to being elected. QED.
Er, along with Boris, Farage dragged the UK out of the EU. Probably the greatest triumph in British political history since World War 2. Not bad for a crackpot from the fringe
And it really was thanks to Farage, and his electoral appeal. Without his party, UKIP, Cameron would never have felt pressured to call a referendum
The fact Farage never made it as an MP in Westminster will be a tiny one line footnote in the History of Britain 1945-now. Brexit will be a whole chapter
You seem to have accidentally spelt disaster as 'triumph'. Autocorrect issue maybe?
Seriously though, Farage's impact on the country has been huge, larger than say TM's for example; you think it was for good, I think for bad.
But... it was only on that one issue, important though it was. Most of his ideas have sunk without trace and he does not wield any power today at all.
He had one job. And he did it, superbly
What else is left? Farage is like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer
Now he flaps in the shallows at the end of history's river, having spawned his Brexit, dying in the sun like the semelparous salmon
What I do is me; for that I came
Thankfully, all his other beliefs have gained no traction whatsoever.
So far everyone who likes Truss seems to have been voting Tory anyway. Anyone being converted?
If she leagalises weed and abolishes the monarchy I'd vote for her!
If she proposes that I will vote LD or RefUK for the first time ever at a general election. It would no longer be the Tory Party.
She would lead the party to its worst defeat ever and give Labour and the LDs a landslide victory, the Tories probably even falling behind RefUK led by a resurgent Farage.
Though I can't believe she would be that stupid. It would be Kim Campbell 1993 annihilation
Or Plaid.
I never voted Plaid at a general election and voted for every Tory candidate on the same town council ballot paper
And have berated every other Tory for not being a proper Tory like you. And now here you are saying "if they do x I will have to protest vote against the Tories." Which is quite literally what all the people you berate did...
If the Tory leader does not support the monarchy or the Church of England as the established church the Tory party by definition no longer exists, as those have always been its consistent core principles since the 17th century and still as the Conservative Party since the mid 19th century.
Instead it would just be a libertarian right of centre on economics, socially liberal party if Truss went down that route.
However nationalist patriots would move en masse to RefUK and traditional One Nation Tories would move en masse to the LDs leaving a relic of the old party behind. Truss would have killed the Tories as well as most likely her premiership
I have no problem with you making a principled stand. But your endless railing against other PB Tories for making a principled stand of their own does makes this look rather hypocritical.
No it doesn't as the Tory party still exists for now
Your definition of the Tory party perhaps. It is a statement of supreme arrogance for you to say that your definition is the only valid definition. And if you flounce off there will be Tories making similar statements about you.
No it isn't. The Tory Party was founded in the 17th century to support the monarchy and the Church of England as the established church, those are the key principles it has always had, even when it has put up tax or cut tax, increased spending or cut spending, been protectionist or for free trade, supported gay marriage or section 28, supported going into the EEC or Brexit, supported appeasement or going to war, supported nationalised industries or privatisation.
If it abandoned those 2 key principles, the Tory Party would cease to exist
Lots of things exist which served one function a long time ago but now fulfil a different function. I can accept that there is some affection for the monarchy - that feels right - but is the Conservative Party really that keen on the CofE? It doesn't seem to be a feeling which is reciprocated. The CofE establishment seems to be largely Corbynite.
Yes, I don't think there's very much affection for the Church of England among the average Conservative voter or politician.
Rubbish.
The Conservatives had a 23% lead over Labour amongst Anglicans ahead of the last general election. By contrast Labour led by 4% amongst Roman Catholics, Labour led by 5% amongst those without religion and Labour led by 19% amongst Pentecostals and 9% amongst Greek Orthodox and Labour led by 47% amongst Muslims and by 5% with Hindus. The Tories had a smaller 10% lead amongst Baptists, a 14% lead amongst Methodists and a 14% lead amongst Presbyterians.
Apart from Jews, with whom the Tories led by 29%, Anglicans and members of the Church of England are still the Conservatives staunchest supporters (even if the clergy tend to be more left liberal their congregation generally are not)
None of that proves the average Conservative voter has affection for the C of E. The organisation is completely out of line with Conservative voters' opinions. You have perhaps 2 m people who attend C of E services once a month, compared to 14 m Conservative voters.
It's Corbynistas preaching to Liz Truss supporters.
But, I still go. I basically tune out and ignore almost all of what the vicars say (something I don't think half of them realise) and use my time there to enjoy the ritual, and develop my own self-reflection within the institution and relationship with God.
I was astonished that in trying to help mostly gay children whose childhoods were being destroyed by experimental treatment, I was misrepresented by mischief-makers and their friends in certain media outlets as being anti-LGBT with slurs gleefully retweeted by Labour politicians such as Angela Rayner and Chris Bryant…..
Where was the furore in parliament as these women suffered? A healthy opposition would have pushed government to solve the problem sooner. Instead Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were on the wrong side of the debate, captured by gender-identity ideologues. Notable exceptions, such as MPs Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry, were ostracised by their party leadership who refused to look at the evidence, preferring to posture on social media and chant slogans in parliament
Hopefully Liz will put her in charge of education and weed out all of the gender identity idiots from schools before they do any more damage to our children.
An awful lot of gender identity idiots in education. Would be a generational task.
There are not nearly as many as are thought by the drunken weirdos of the Daily Wail.
But since her stated goal is to fire all TAs and make further curriculum changes, I imagine all teachers whether gender identity idiots or not would very rapidly tread the same path I have done.
So I suppose it would sort of work.
No, that's fair.
But secondary schools are weird. The ones I've visited recently, anyway. They feel like one play being acted on the stage of the other. You talk to teachers, and with very few exceptions they seem as you would hope and expect: professionals keen to deliver a good education. Yet the background to all this is walls plastered with a barrage of material about sexuality and gender identity, with a side order of race. Clearly someone powerful in these schools cares deeply about this sort of thing, and they are proving impossible to face down. And when you hear that three children in a year of 150 are in the process of transitioning, it does lead you to suspect that something odd is going on.
Blame OFSTED, the DfE and various campaigning groups about equally.
Yes, it's clear from the outcomes that there is a powerful pro-trans lobby somewhere in education. It's also clear from you and other teachers I know that the views of this lobby, while they seem to get a lot of prominence, are not representative. It's odd.
People are scared. Refuse to put up Stonewall's posters and they will call OSFTED in, who will say that safeguarding is neglected and students are being discriminated against on gender identity basis. And then put the school in Special Measures. Amid a blaze of local publicity and a hate campaign.
Evidence? Normally you're sensible, but that's piffle. Can you cite a school that has been put into special measures on safeguarding grounds because of absence of Stonewall posters or discrimination on gender identity grounds? I'd be very surprised if you can. Link to the Ofsted report, please.
No, because they're so frightened of OFSTED nobody will take the risk.
But you are defending about an organisation that recently told a school in Staffordshire that children were watching porn in lessons so they would be placed in special measures.
It took two solid days going through the internet records to prove to the rather dim HMI concerned that the children who had said that were lying.
Fortunately, when one claimed to have been hit by a teacher it only took an hour going through the CCTV to prove that they were not telling the truth, so the inspector who had said the named teachers should be fired looked even stupider than usual.
By which time one of the inspection team had been ordered out of a staff meeting for abusing a teacher and blabbed details of a student's medical record to an entire class as part of a campaign to prove SEND provision was not up to scratch.
And you wonder why people are scared of these utter scum, particularly backed up by the abusive fascists from Stonewall?
I'm not defending Ofsted in the least. But you are confirming that you have no evidence of a school being placed in Special Measures because it didn't display Stonewall posters or due to discrimination on gender identity grounds. That's what your original post was about. What you've posted in response to my comment is irrelevant to your original claim. You're helping to perpetuate an 'anti-woke' myth, that's all. You're better than that.
That's the threat, and that's the situation if the threat were made reality. OFSTED is a very dangerous organisation run by safeguarding risks and idiots that nobody wants anything to do with. And that is why people do not dare argue or resist. Not all have the resilience of JK Rowling.
That being said, I have never seen a school where they 'plaster the walls.' A couple of display boards, perhaps. They never made it in to my classrooms for the simple reason I had far better things to show on notice boards. Starting with the childrens' work.
I concur with your last paragraph, which strikes me as more typical than the notion that gender identity stuff is plastered everywhere in loads of schools - it just isn't. And, by the way, if any deviant Ofsted team were to place a school in SM because of an absence of such displays, I'd expect the school leaders to appeal against the judgement. And win.
"Generation Flaunt It: why I post bikini selfies It started with the A-list. Now twentysomethings love posting pictures in bikinis. Don’t blame Love Island, says Hannah Evans — just get over it and send me a heart emoji" (£)
Niiigel, Nig-el Far-age, Everyone Loves Your Cords!
Niiigel, Ni-gel Far-age, Thanks For Stopping the Hordes!
Thar's what our smiling, rosy-cheeked children will sing, on this:
the Feast of Leave.
And Brexit Day shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered, with our cheers We few, we happy few, we band of Brexiteers
To the tune of “Oh tannenbaum”
Oh Brexit day, oh Brexit day What glorious freedom came of you
Oh Brexit day, oh Brexit day The 48 v 52
Nigel Farage was the star He showed us who really are
Oh Brexit day, oh Brexit day We are the best country by far.
"Generation Flaunt It: why I post bikini selfies It started with the A-list. Now twentysomethings love posting pictures in bikinis. Don’t blame Love Island, says Hannah Evans — just get over it and send me a heart emoji" (£)
I'm confused by this generation. Half the time we're told they're a bunch of puritans who don't drink, etc, and then there's this sort of thing.
I think they're a generation who take everything to extremes - but different members of the generation take different things to an extreme.
So the exhibitionists and substance-abusers will do so to a greater extreme, but those who might have dabbled a bit will do less so. They'll take something else to an extreme instead.
"Generation Flaunt It: why I post bikini selfies It started with the A-list. Now twentysomethings love posting pictures in bikinis. Don’t blame Love Island, says Hannah Evans — just get over it and send me a heart emoji" (£)
I'm confused by this generation. Half the time we're told they're a bunch of puritans who don't drink, etc, and then there's this sort of thing.
I think they're a generation who take everything to extremes - but different members of the generation take different things to an extreme.
So the exhibitionists and substance-abusers will do so to a greater extreme, but those who might have dabbled a bit will do less so. They'll take something else to an extreme instead.
Reminds of this article I read once in the Speccie by a bloke who took onanism to the extreme.
One day there will be a 20 foot high titanium statue of Nigel Farage in every town and village in the land. On Brexit Day troops of happy children will lay nosegays and garlands at his titanium feet, giving thanks for Leave. And much singing will be heard across the happy realm, carolling out the words; for this it, our Brexit Day, this is why we feast, in freedom
Nonsense. In 20 years we'll rejoin, and our national anthem will be replaced with Ode to Joy, all Sterling currency will be burned in huge bonfires around the country as Euros are dropped from the sky everywhere, and for the first time England will have an official language, which will be French!
"Generation Flaunt It: why I post bikini selfies It started with the A-list. Now twentysomethings love posting pictures in bikinis. Don’t blame Love Island, says Hannah Evans — just get over it and send me a heart emoji" (£)
Comments
What else is left? Farage is like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer
Now he flaps in the shallows at the end of history's river, having spawned his Brexit, dying in the sun like the semelparous salmon
What I do is me; for that I came
Niiigel, Ni-gel Far-age, Thanks For Stopping the Hordes!
Thar's what our smiling, rosy-cheeked children will sing, on this:
the Feast of Leave.
And Brexit Day shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered, with our cheers
We few, we happy few, we band of Brexiteers
That being said, I have never seen a school where they 'plaster the walls.' A couple of display boards, perhaps. They never made it in to my classrooms for the simple reason I had far better things to show on notice boards. Starting with the childrens' work.
I feel a sudden calm yet giddy gladness
If you want to disown Anglicans and the Church of England then you won't have many if any Conservative voters left at the next general election. The Tories would be annihilated as they were in 1997.
Already the Tory vote is about 10% down on 2019, you don't alienate your core vote!
Whatever you think of him and his politics he's a totemical figure of the last 30 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Political_views
Brexit of course will ultimately come to be seen as a momentous failure too.
This thread is like Rishi Rich's career in politics. Over!
But, I still go. I basically tune out and ignore almost all of what the vicars say (something I don't think half of them realise) and use my time there to enjoy the ritual, and develop my own self-reflection within the institution and relationship with God.
"Generation Flaunt It: why I post bikini selfies
It started with the A-list. Now twentysomethings love posting pictures in bikinis. Don’t blame Love Island, says Hannah Evans — just get over it and send me a heart emoji" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/generation-flaunt-it-why-i-post-bikini-selfies-zxl8wp9xx
I'm confused by this generation. Half the time we're told they're a bunch of puritans who don't drink, etc, and then there's this sort of thing.
Oh Brexit day, oh Brexit day
What glorious freedom came of you
Oh Brexit day, oh Brexit day
The 48 v 52
Nigel Farage was the star
He showed us who really are
Oh Brexit day, oh Brexit day
We are the best country by far.
So the exhibitionists and substance-abusers will do so to a greater extreme, but those who might have dabbled a bit will do less so. They'll take something else to an extreme instead.
Though you don't need to be drunk to be confident in your own body.