Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

More good polling for Truss – politicalbetting.com

145679

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,239

    dixiedean said:

    DougSeal said:

    Right. Saturday evening. Lovely weather. Association Football on the television. Patio doors open. I’m on the beer.

    Fortunately CHB doesn't appear to have joined you this evening.
    Is this necessary?
    We're just a bit worried about you Horsey. You should be flattered. Literally no one cares when @Leon has one of his regular binges.. ;)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,598

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,994
    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFzbqFcePp8
    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…
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,994
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    The hits keep coming


    "Children referred for puberty blockers after just one consultation at Tavistock clinic

    "Parents call for use of the drugs to be stopped immediately, following warnings they could affect parts of the brain"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/29/children-referred-puberty-blockers-just-one-consultation-tavistock/


    WTAF

    The first appointment was the psychological assessment, the second an endocrinological one, usually after a 2 year wait following referral, so not a transient whim. There may also have been significant assessment by the referring unit.

    Worth noting that puberty blockers were only prescribed if the child was Gillick competent, and could not be prescribed without that informed consent.

    The Tavistock is closing in favour of regional services, initially in London and Liverpool, with others to follow. In part this is to reduce waiting times as referrals have massively increased over the last decade. It isn't the Tavistock that is generating the demand, indeed it has clearly struggled to cope with demand.
    What disingenuity. We all know why it is closing. Read Badenoch’s article. Read multiple letters in the Times today from ex-staff

    Here’s just one


    Sir, Dr Hilary Cass’s report marks an important chapter in a long history of mistreatment of children and young people with gender dysphoria who were put on a medical pathway with insufficient exploration and often little consideration of consent (reports and leading article, Jul 29). The complete lack of any follow-up of those who have undergone what can only be regarded as experimental treatment is lamentable. Staff who raised concerns were intimidated. The Cass recommendations are being misrepresented as purely a way of managing the long waiting list. But it was a long waiting list for the wrong treatment. Gender dysphoria in children is complex: many have histories of trauma and are on the autistic spectrum; others are depressed or have family problems. A high proportion are gay and lesbian but are confused about their sexual identity. Our thoughts now must be with the large number of children and young people who are living with the irreversible consequences of having been put inappropriately on a medical/surgical pathway that they now regret.
    Dr David Bell
    Former consultant psychiatrist and governor, the Tavistock clinic
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFzbqFcePp8
    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 would say the party leader who has been the best speaker since Churchill was Kinnock. God knows I was no more left wing as a child than I am now, but I always thought he performed his art well. The Welsh accent too - best speaking accent for the job, I'd say. Most British accents, at least some of the audience will take against you immediately. Less so with Welsh. Less so also with NE English, Highland Scots and SW English, though I'd say Welsh is more persuasive.
    Kinnock was a powerful speaker in small doses and as long as he kept control of himself.

    When he didn't:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TOgB3Smvro
    Good clip.
    I'd forgotten how much I used to like Roy Hattersley.
    I'd say Kinnock actually did quite well there, aside from the infamous "We're Alright!". That bit was nonsense. Don't know what he was thinking. After that, it turns into quite a decent speech. But by then the damage was done.
  • Great to have Liverpool start the season with a trophy. 🏆

    Is it just me, or is July rather early for the Community Shield? I thought it was normally August.

    Is it due to the Qatar World Cup?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,450

    dixiedean said:

    DougSeal said:

    Right. Saturday evening. Lovely weather. Association Football on the television. Patio doors open. I’m on the beer.

    Fortunately CHB doesn't appear to have joined you this evening.
    Is this necessary?
    Clearly DixieDean was referring to the fact that there was a magnificent beast with a blonde mane who was missing his shots and so assumed you are Erling Haaland - so fortunately for those who wanted Liverpool to win you were on the pitch not on the piss.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    Great to have Liverpool start the season with a trophy. 🏆

    Is it just me, or is July rather early for the Community Shield? I thought it was normally August.

    Is it due to the Qatar World Cup?

    Yes, I think so, Ipswich (and many other teams) scored their first July league goal today.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFzbqFcePp8
    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.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,380

    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
    Nope she is pointing out that not only were they not supporting a very important position which should have been non party political, they were actively working against it to the detriment of the children they were supposed to be protecting. All because of a combination of misguided ideology and fear of having to make a stand on something.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,994

    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
    Labor have said absolutely zip about the Tavistock, as far as I can see. Nothing. Nil. Nada nada nada

    They are pathetic
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728
    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305

    The damaging revelations of the Jan. 6 committee hearings are fueling skepticism among Senate Republicans that former President Trump can win the GOP nomination in 2024 or even run for another term in the White House.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3580149-gop-senators-are-skeptical-damaged-trump-can-win-in-2024/

    If Trump backed candidates fail in November then his credibility will be damaged.
    Trump is losing the support of Rupert Murdoch's press and even Fox News is giving more coverage to DeSantis than Trump nowadays.
    The interesting thing will be to see what Trump does if he doesn't get the Republican nomination.
    Another interesting thing will be to see what Liz Cheney does if he does.
    Either of these factors could help the Democrats
    Please, please let him run as an independent and tear the Republicans apart.

    They came to power when the Democrats and Whigs split, and split themselves in 1912 over Roosevelt's egomania. Let them die by splitting for a second and final time.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
    Labor have said absolutely zip about the Tavistock, as far as I can see. Nothing. Nil. Nada nada nada

    They are pathetic
    The place has been operating for the last 12 years under Conservative Prime Ministers and (correct me if I’m wrong for 2010-2015) Health Secretaries. You’re blaming Labour for not saying anything while the party of the current administration has not been doing anything. Which is worse?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,384

    dixiedean said:

    DougSeal said:

    Right. Saturday evening. Lovely weather. Association Football on the television. Patio doors open. I’m on the beer.

    Fortunately CHB doesn't appear to have joined you this evening.
    Is this necessary?
    Just wishing for your welfare.
    Nothing more.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,994
    edited July 2022
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
    Labor have said absolutely zip about the Tavistock, as far as I can see. Nothing. Nil. Nada nada nada

    They are pathetic
    The place has been operating for the last 12 years under Conservative Prime Ministers and (correct me if I’m wrong for 2010-2015) Health Secretaries. You’re blaming Labour for not saying anything while the party of the current administration has not been doing anything. Which is worse?
    Oh, I blame them all. Earlier I blamed mordaunt. It’s there. Have a look

    But at least the Tories are addressing it now. Yet labour? Nothing

    And we all know that 90% of Woke madness - and this is a subset of that - comes from the Left
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,598
    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

  • eekeek Posts: 28,264

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,754
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
    Labor have said absolutely zip about the Tavistock, as far as I can see. Nothing. Nil. Nada nada nada

    They are pathetic
    12 years of Tory mis-rule.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    edited July 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728
    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,384
    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    That's meant to be changing from next year. You get your results, apply the same day and everything is done in a month.

    But like you I don't see how it does work.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,567
    edited July 2022
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
    Labor have said absolutely zip about the Tavistock, as far as I can see. Nothing. Nil. Nada nada nada

    They are pathetic
    The place has been operating for the last 12 years under Conservative Prime Ministers and (correct me if I’m wrong for 2010-2015) Health Secretaries. You’re blaming Labour for not saying anything while the party of the current administration has not been doing anything. Which is worse?
    Oh, I blame them all. Earlier I blamed mordaunt. It’s there. Have a look

    But at least the Tories are addressing it now. Yet labour? Nothing

    And we all know that 90% of Woke madness - and this is a subset of that - comes from the Left
    There is a chance this really blows up. Did people like Jeremy Hunt get warned? I appreciate the Tories are kicking up a fuss now, but they'll get palmed off with the "culture war" line. If it turns out senior Tories covered it up then this will snowball.

    I very quick google finds stuff like this - 3 years ago: https://medium.com/@kirstyentwistle/an-open-letter-to-dr-polly-carmichael-from-a-former-gids-clinician-53c541276b8d

    And before @StuartDickson comes in with "the English are mutilating children". https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-doctors-approved-breast-removal-for-51-trans-teenagers-qvkmz8r2c
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
    Labor have said absolutely zip about the Tavistock, as far as I can see. Nothing. Nil. Nada nada nada

    They are pathetic
    12 years of Tory mis-rule.
    Well yes. If the right has been fighting a culture war, as some suggest, it has been doing it very badly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,836
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFzbqFcePp8
    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.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,384
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,598
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    Just read that. Clear, plausible, articulate, entirely credible

    She's excellent. Truss must give her a senior job
    I'm not sure i understand. She's blaming the opposition for not stepping in when her own government was doing things she didn't agree with?
    Labor have said absolutely zip about the Tavistock, as far as I can see. Nothing. Nil. Nada nada nada

    They are pathetic
    The place has been operating for the last 12 years under Conservative Prime Ministers and (correct me if I’m wrong for 2010-2015) Health Secretaries. You’re blaming Labour for not saying anything while the party of the current administration has not been doing anything. Which is worse?
    Oh, I blame them all. Earlier I blamed mordaunt. It’s there. Have a look

    But at least the Tories are addressing it now. Yet labour? Nothing

    And we all know that 90% of Woke madness - and this is a subset of that - comes from the Left
    There is a chance this really blows up. Did people like Jeremy Hunt get warned?

    I very quick google finds stuff like this - 3 years ago: https://medium.com/@kirstyentwistle/an-open-letter-to-dr-polly-carmichael-from-a-former-gids-clinician-53c541276b8d

    And before @StuartDickson comes in with "the English are mutilating children". https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-doctors-approved-breast-removal-for-51-trans-teenagers-qvkmz8r2c
    The history of psychiatry is littered with this kind of madness frankly.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,384
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    That's meant to be changing from next year. You get your results, apply the same day and everything is done in a month.

    But like you I don't see how it does work.
    Yeah. If you apply the same day and everything done in a month, how long a window is there for interviews?
    And who the heck would do them all?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
    If she meant that she's even madder. There aren't any other support staff now. Half the time in my final term I was doing technical support because there was nobody else available. We had a receptionist, an HR Secretary, a bursar, two science technicians and that was about it (and the science technicians have both quit).

    Who else could go? The cover supervisors? We were already all on full timetables and struggling to source supply. The TAs? Oh great, for the reasons I outlined above. The librarians? One has gone. The school nurse? We were down to 50% capacity there as well.

    They just don't fucking get it. But what's worse is they don't care about the damage they're doing to our children by their utter fucking stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and meddling, while pretending hypocritically that they do.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,496
    Biden has tested positive for Covid again.

    image
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    That's meant to be changing from next year. You get your results, apply the same day and everything is done in a month.

    But like you I don't see how it does work.
    Yeah. If you apply the same day and everything done in a month, how long a window is there for interviews?
    And who the heck would do them all?
    It would have to be the lecturers, over zoom.

    Because obviously they don't have to do any research or prepare any lectures. September is a lovely quiet month for them where they will now be used much more efficiently.

    Ooh, look at that flying pig...

    Of course, with certain grades there's going to be much less need for interviews outside maybe Oxbridge and the LSE. So it may be easier in some ways.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,342
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    I have decided that what we should do in all departments of the civil service, is set up rival departments with overlapping responsibilities, totally outside the civil service chain of command, and play them off against each other. Make them compete for funding by proving themselves to be the most zealous and effective. I realise that this is tangential to your post.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728
    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,743
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    That's meant to be changing from next year. You get your results, apply the same day and everything is done in a month.

    But like you I don't see how it does work.
    Yeah. If you apply the same day and everything done in a month, how long a window is there for interviews?
    And who the heck would do them all?
    Indeed. It would be better to forget the interviews and just have a lottery. All Truss-qualified A-level students can enter a computer-based lottery for however many places Liz Truss has mandated Oxbridge must keep free (say one or two per college per subject). A computer could spit out the results faster than the 1922 Committee can count 359 votes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    edited July 2022

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    I have decided that what we should do in all departments of the civil service, is set up rival departments with overlapping responsibilities, totally outside the civil service chain of command, and play them off against each other. Make them compete for funding by proving themselves to be the most zealous and effective. I realise that this is tangential to your post.
    I peronsally think a better approach would be to ban promotion within the Civil Service. Force anyone who wants to rise up the ladder to go and work elsewhere and experience other ways of doing things, be that business, or charity, or a university, and then reapply.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,994

    Biden has tested positive for Covid again.

    image

    A nation prays
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    edited July 2022
    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,384
    edited July 2022
    ...
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
    If she meant that she's even madder. There aren't any other support staff now. Half the time in my final term I was doing technical support because there was nobody else available. We had a receptionist, an HR Secretary, a bursar, two science technicians and that was about it (and the science technicians have both quit).

    Who else could go? The cover supervisors? We were already all on full timetables and struggling to source supply. The TAs? Oh great, for the reasons I outlined above. The librarians? One has gone. The school nurse? We were down to 50% capacity there as well.

    They just don't fucking get it. But what's worse is they don't care about the damage they're doing to our children by their utter fucking stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and meddling, while pretending hypocritically that they do.
    Yeah. This goes beyond education and the closure of PRU's and special schools though.
    Youth services, CAMHS, children's services have been gutted. Increasingly, there's no one to pick up the pieces. Or even to signpost to.
    Schools are increasingly expected to be the mental health and social workers.
  • Leon said:

    Biden has tested positive for Covid again.

    image

    A nation prays
    If there's one way to get GOP voters to want the best for Biden, its to think they're a heartbeat away from President Harris.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,886
    Who cares about the Tavistock? Its a non-issue to 99.9% of the population.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,743

    The Community Shield isn't a friendly, it is a proper trophy, it is something you have to earn qualification for.

    Edit - If Liverpool lose this match then it is a glorified friendly.

    After the Community Shield, Mo Salah is in a couple of ticks on Betfair for the Golden Boot (there might even be an arb with the books if Oddschecker is to be believed). Manc-bookie Betfred has boosted Liverpool to 7/2 for the Premier League.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,152

    Who cares about the Tavistock? Its a non-issue to 99.9% of the population.

    Who cares about any issue that isn’t monetary or fiscal policy?

    Blood poisoning - should we not give a toss about that?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,805
    Truss wanted to build 1 million greenbelt homes in 2019. Anyone know if she is still up for this?

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/liz-truss-says-tories-should-build-a-million-homes-on-green-belt-as-she-drops-clear-hint-at-leadership-bid
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,963
    edited July 2022
    Hope so. 👍

    In Liz we Truss. Another good example of her sound judgement.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,598
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    Thanks.

    At my rough Brum comp there were plenty of kids "shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos" all day long. Not a TA in sight.

    Ok - maybe not the actual screaming bit but you get my drift.

    Interestingly, Morris resigned because she felt the job was beyond her abilities. Maybe that was because she was an actual teacher and knew how much needed to change?

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,067
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFzbqFcePp8
    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…
    That's a certain sort of British person and that type is found all over the world. Sadly.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,743
    edited July 2022

    Who cares about the Tavistock? Its a non-issue to 99.9% of the population.

    True but come the election, CCHQ social media algo-bashers will be micro-targeting those voters who do care.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,886
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
    If she meant that she's even madder. There aren't any other support staff now. Half the time in my final term I was doing technical support because there was nobody else available. We had a receptionist, an HR Secretary, a bursar, two science technicians and that was about it (and the science technicians have both quit).

    Who else could go? The cover supervisors? We were already all on full timetables and struggling to source supply. The TAs? Oh great, for the reasons I outlined above. The librarians? One has gone. The school nurse? We were down to 50% capacity there as well.

    They just don't fucking get it. But what's worse is they don't care about the damage they're doing to our children by their utter fucking stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and meddling, while pretending hypocritically that they do.
    And that is true about a whole stack of issues. They don't care. Yet the people who are directly affected by the consequences of their uncaring malevolence have been told that the fault lies with education professionals.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,567
    edited July 2022

    Who cares about the Tavistock? Its a non-issue to 99.9% of the population.

    Frankly, the only thing any of us should care about is Scotland's low fertility rate.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    I've always thought starting the uni academic year in January would enable them to spend August to December doing the interviews etc.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,310
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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 believe you are misjudging both Ms. Truss and your party. She will tack to whatever position she requires to remain popular with Conservative voters, and that will include support for the monarchy.

    She is as daft as a brush, but she has some very smart people pulling her strings. She will do just fine
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,598

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
    If she meant that she's even madder. There aren't any other support staff now. Half the time in my final term I was doing technical support because there was nobody else available. We had a receptionist, an HR Secretary, a bursar, two science technicians and that was about it (and the science technicians have both quit).

    Who else could go? The cover supervisors? We were already all on full timetables and struggling to source supply. The TAs? Oh great, for the reasons I outlined above. The librarians? One has gone. The school nurse? We were down to 50% capacity there as well.

    They just don't fucking get it. But what's worse is they don't care about the damage they're doing to our children by their utter fucking stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and meddling, while pretending hypocritically that they do.
    And that is true about a whole stack of issues. They don't care. Yet the people who are directly affected by the consequences of their uncaring malevolence have been told that the fault lies with education professionals.
    The vast majority of the selectorate who are about to vote Truss in haven't been inside a school since the 1950s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,658

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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 believe you are misjudging both Ms. Truss and your party. She will tack to whatever position she requires to remain popular with Conservative voters, and that will include support for the monarchy.

    She is as daft as a brush, but she has some very smart people pulling her strings. She will do just fine
    She probably will, hence her support for a new royal yacht for instance.

    However I still have reservations about her past
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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

    The Tory Party by definition hasn't existed since the 19th century.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,658
    The LDs would certainly be up for her proposing that
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,886
    Ratters said:

    From a liberal perspective, the need to identify as a gender irritates me. All sexes should be able to do whatever the hell they like, dress as they like and sleep with who they want. There is no need to silo certain actions and preferences into a 'gender'. Medical treatment at such a young age to reflect this must be highly inappropriate in (almost?) all cases

    But there's blame on both sides. Boys at school are told they can't have long hair; girls that they can't wear trousers. Society still tries to force people into two boxes and so it shouldn't be surprising that some people feel uncomfortable with this being forced on them and so find comfort in the idea of their gender being different. A better solution to all of this would be equality of the sexes and having the same boundaries for boys and girls, men and women, without the need for a label.

    Quite. Be who you want to be, do who you want to do. But oh no, we have to have traditional boundaries and that means girls must do girl things and not boy things. Hence the pushback in parts of the media to the England team showing up the men in the Euros. "Stop saying they are amazing, its soooooo overblown"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
    If she meant that she's even madder. There aren't any other support staff now. Half the time in my final term I was doing technical support because there was nobody else available. We had a receptionist, an HR Secretary, a bursar, two science technicians and that was about it (and the science technicians have both quit).

    Who else could go? The cover supervisors? We were already all on full timetables and struggling to source supply. The TAs? Oh great, for the reasons I outlined above. The librarians? One has gone. The school nurse? We were down to 50% capacity there as well.

    They just don't fucking get it. But what's worse is they don't care about the damage they're doing to our children by their utter fucking stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and meddling, while pretending hypocritically that they do.
    And that is true about a whole stack of issues. They don't care. Yet the people who are directly affected by the consequences of their uncaring malevolence have been told that the fault lies with education professionals.
    The vast majority of the selectorate who are about to vote Truss in haven't been inside a school since the 1950s.
    As recently as that?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,152
    edited July 2022
    Ratters said:

    From a liberal perspective, the need to identify as a gender irritates me. All sexes should be able to do whatever the hell they like, dress as they like and sleep with who they want. There is no need to silo certain actions and preferences into a 'gender'. Medical treatment at such a young age to reflect this must be highly inappropriate in (almost?) all cases

    But there's blame on both sides. Boys at school are told they can't have long hair; girls that they can't wear trousers. Society still tries to force people into two boxes and so it shouldn't be surprising that some people feel uncomfortable with this being forced on them and so find comfort in the idea of their gender being different. A better solution to all of this would be equality of the sexes and having the same boundaries for boys and girls, men and women, without the need for a label.

    Are boys banned from having long hair at school? It’s 20 years since I was at school, but we had a limit on how short our hair could be. I don’t recall a limit on how long it could be.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    I've always thought starting the uni academic year in January would enable them to spend August to December doing the interviews etc.
    They missed a golden opportunity to bring in that staggered start during Covid as well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    Eabhal said:

    Who cares about the Tavistock? Its a non-issue to 99.9% of the population.

    Frankly, the only thing any of us should care about is Scotland's low fertility rate.
    Any success in your efforts to increase it?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,743

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    I've always thought starting the uni academic year in January would enable them to spend August to December doing the interviews etc.
    It would but is there evidence that interviews help in any way?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,658

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,598
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    That's meant to be changing from next year. You get your results, apply the same day and everything is done in a month.

    But like you I don't see how it does work.
    Yeah. If you apply the same day and everything done in a month, how long a window is there for interviews?
    And who the heck would do them all?
    It would have to be the lecturers, over zoom.

    Because obviously they don't have to do any research or prepare any lectures. September is a lovely quiet month for them where they will now be used much more efficiently.

    Ooh, look at that flying pig...

    Of course, with certain grades there's going to be much less need for interviews outside maybe Oxbridge and the LSE. So it may be easier in some ways.
    Oh Jeez, I have just realised it is August next week and the annual newspaper inflated crisis over GCSEs, A levels, university entrance chaos etc etc etc.

    I may just hide under my duvet.

  • Ratters said:

    From a liberal perspective, the need to identify as a gender irritates me. All sexes should be able to do whatever the hell they like, dress as they like and sleep with who they want. There is no need to silo certain actions and preferences into a 'gender'. Medical treatment at such a young age to reflect this must be highly inappropriate in (almost?) all cases

    But there's blame on both sides. Boys at school are told they can't have long hair; girls that they can't wear trousers. Society still tries to force people into two boxes and so it shouldn't be surprising that some people feel uncomfortable with this being forced on them and so find comfort in the idea of their gender being different. A better solution to all of this would be equality of the sexes and having the same boundaries for boys and girls, men and women, without the need for a label.

    Who tells girls they can't wear trousers in 2022? 😲

    My daughters are allowed to wear trousers and sometimes do, they have dresses and trousers and I let them choose which they want to wear, except on PE days when they have to wear trousers or shorts.

    Boys should be able to wear what they want too, or have whatever hair they want too.

    When I was growing up there were many girls who were very into stereotypical boy things who might be called 'tomboys'. Nowadays I just thought they were supposed to be just called 'girls' as the idea of boys toys and girls toys had been eliminated. But I wonder if now some are pushing to get them called 'boys'?

    All very fluid. Rather ironic.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,658
    edited July 2022

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    Those getting 3 A* grade A levels aren't that high a number, even if those getting at least 1 A* or A grade might be.

    Truss herself says she “I got an A in English which was a massive surprise actually, an A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths.”
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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
    You are JRM and I claim three shillings.

    The Tory Party did cease to exist. Nearly two centuries ago.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,630

    Hope so. 👍

    In Liz we Truss. Another good example of her sound judgement.
    I suspect your Truss is going to be totally misplaced.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,567
    edited July 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Eabhal said:

    Who cares about the Tavistock? Its a non-issue to 99.9% of the population.

    Frankly, the only thing any of us should care about is Scotland's low fertility rate.
    Any success in your efforts to increase it?
    My girlfriend and I recently concluded that we are not settled or responsible enough to get a cat.

    Maybe when we get to 30.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    That's meant to be changing from next year. You get your results, apply the same day and everything is done in a month.

    But like you I don't see how it does work.
    Yeah. If you apply the same day and everything done in a month, how long a window is there for interviews?
    And who the heck would do them all?
    It would have to be the lecturers, over zoom.

    Because obviously they don't have to do any research or prepare any lectures. September is a lovely quiet month for them where they will now be used much more efficiently.

    Ooh, look at that flying pig...

    Of course, with certain grades there's going to be much less need for interviews outside maybe Oxbridge and the LSE. So it may be easier in some ways.
    Oh Jeez, I have just realised it is August next week and the annual newspaper inflated crisis over GCSEs, A levels, university entrance chaos etc etc etc.

    I may just hide under my duvet.

    This year's grades are going to be a shambles. Leaving aside the mess and confusion over advance notice, there's going to be hell to pay over the grade boundaries, especially for those subjects with only one year under the reformed spec to draw on (when they hadn't got most of the criteria right anyway).

    Just remember the whole system is a farce anyway and the people who invented it should be shot and not still buggering up schools by being Head of OFSTED or Prime Minister.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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
    Quite right sir. And exactly why we don't need or want a leader who is anti-monarchist.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,658

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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
    You are JRM and I claim three shillings.

    The Tory Party did cease to exist. Nearly two centuries ago.
    The Conservative Party too has always supported the monarchy and the Church of England as the established church, it was the successor party of the Tory Party
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    edited July 2022
    Eabhal said:

    ydoethur said:

    Eabhal said:

    Who cares about the Tavistock? Its a non-issue to 99.9% of the population.

    Frankly, the only thing any of us should care about is Scotland's low fertility rate.
    Any success in your efforts to increase it?
    My girlfriend and I recently concluded that we are not settled or responsible enough to get a cat.

    Maybe when we get to 30.
    So, as you can't get a pussy, the answer's no?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,152

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    How would it work - until things change you apply for uni well before you get your a level results
    Yeah. Youngest predicted 2 A stars and an A. He's all set and ready with hall place and all for UCL.
    Sounds good. Doesn't work. How many interviews between results day and term starting?
    That's meant to be changing from next year. You get your results, apply the same day and everything is done in a month.

    But like you I don't see how it does work.
    Yeah. If you apply the same day and everything done in a month, how long a window is there for interviews?
    And who the heck would do them all?
    It would have to be the lecturers, over zoom.

    Because obviously they don't have to do any research or prepare any lectures. September is a lovely quiet month for them where they will now be used much more efficiently.

    Ooh, look at that flying pig...

    Of course, with certain grades there's going to be much less need for interviews outside maybe Oxbridge and the LSE. So it may be easier in some ways.
    Oh Jeez, I have just realised it is August next week and the annual newspaper inflated crisis over GCSEs, A levels, university entrance chaos etc etc etc.

    I may just hide under my duvet.

    And the obligatory tweet by Jake Humphrey telling everyone how rubbish he did at school.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,003
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
    If she meant that she's even madder. There aren't any other support staff now. Half the time in my final term I was doing technical support because there was nobody else available. We had a receptionist, an HR Secretary, a bursar, two science technicians and that was about it (and the science technicians have both quit).

    Who else could go? The cover supervisors? We were already all on full timetables and struggling to source supply. The TAs? Oh great, for the reasons I outlined above. The librarians? One has gone. The school nurse? We were down to 50% capacity there as well.

    They just don't fucking get it. But what's worse is they don't care about the damage they're doing to our children by their utter fucking stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and meddling, while pretending hypocritically that they do.
    And that is true about a whole stack of issues. They don't care. Yet the people who are directly affected by the consequences of their uncaring malevolence have been told that the fault lies with education professionals.
    The vast majority of the selectorate who are about to vote Truss in haven't been inside a school since the 1950s.
    As recently as that?
    A little bit of Saturday polemic, I think !

    There's hardly any difference between the parties - these are Corbyn era numbers, pre Johnson. 2017. Anyone have anything more recent?


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,658
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    As the established church yes, just appoint more conservative bishops.

    The Conservatives also had a 23% lead over Labour amongst Anglicans at the last general election

    http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/religion-and-party-preference-in-2019/
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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
    You are JRM and I claim three shillings.

    The Tory Party did cease to exist. Nearly two centuries ago.
    The Conservative Party too has always supported the monarchy and the Church of England as the established church, it was the successor party of the Tory Party
    Its a bit more meh on them though. Especially nowadays.

    The old Tory Party died. The new party wasn't founded to support those and the Conservative Party has succeeded by evolving and not sticking rigidly to dogmas of the past.

    Considering how Corbynite the modern CoE is, I think you'll find there's many Tories with no love lost for the CoE.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,279
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728
    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.)
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,755
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
    If she meant that she's even madder. There aren't any other support staff now. Half the time in my final term I was doing technical support because there was nobody else available. We had a receptionist, an HR Secretary, a bursar, two science technicians and that was about it (and the science technicians have both quit).

    Who else could go? The cover supervisors? We were already all on full timetables and struggling to source supply. The TAs? Oh great, for the reasons I outlined above. The librarians? One has gone. The school nurse? We were down to 50% capacity there as well.

    They just don't fucking get it. But what's worse is they don't care about the damage they're doing to our children by their utter fucking stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and meddling, while pretending hypocritically that they do.
    I work in education - and we've seen a 2x increase in academic staff and an _8x_ increase increase in student numbers. And a zero increase in support staff. Academics get frustrated by the 'bad support' they get, students get frustrated, and we're haemorrhaging the remaining support staff as the salaries are falling so very, very far behind the 'real world'.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,331
    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305

    Ratters said:

    From a liberal perspective, the need to identify as a gender irritates me. All sexes should be able to do whatever the hell they like, dress as they like and sleep with who they want. There is no need to silo certain actions and preferences into a 'gender'. Medical treatment at such a young age to reflect this must be highly inappropriate in (almost?) all cases

    But there's blame on both sides. Boys at school are told they can't have long hair; girls that they can't wear trousers. Society still tries to force people into two boxes and so it shouldn't be surprising that some people feel uncomfortable with this being forced on them and so find comfort in the idea of their gender being different. A better solution to all of this would be equality of the sexes and having the same boundaries for boys and girls, men and women, without the need for a label.

    Who tells girls they can't wear trousers in 2022? 😲

    My daughters are allowed to wear trousers and sometimes do, they have dresses and trousers and I let them choose which they want to wear, except on PE days when they have to wear trousers or shorts.

    Boys should be able to wear what they want too, or have whatever hair they want too.

    When I was growing up there were many girls who were very into stereotypical boy things who might be called 'tomboys'. Nowadays I just thought they were supposed to be just called 'girls' as the idea of boys toys and girls toys had been eliminated. But I wonder if now some are pushing to get them called 'boys'?

    All very fluid. Rather ironic.
    Last week in the heatwave, one school of my acquaintance, not in Staffordshire, said boys would not be allowed to wear shorts during the heatwave.

    So a very large number turned up in skirts instead.

    And the school could do nothing about it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,279
    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,630

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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
    You are JRM and I claim three shillings.

    The Tory Party did cease to exist. Nearly two centuries ago.
    Who off-topiced you for that one? Come on, who was it?

    Must have been a misplaced Like.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,754

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Has she said she would fire all TAs?

    I have missed that.

    I don't really know what TAs do - they did not exist in my day other than the technician who set up chemistry lab equipment before the lesson.

    She said that she wanted to remove all 'superfluous' staff, and I'm in no doubt who she meant. Nor is the writer of this article:

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teaching-assistants-schools-kemi-badenoch

    TAs are a mixed blessing. They are essentially there to ensure the children who cannot in a million years cope in mainstream schooling but have to be there because OFSTED have deliberately gone round closing all special schools and as many PRUs as they can are controlled, supported and helped. Rather than shouting, screaming, hitting people and running around causing chaos.

    They can also be difficult and restless and one I remember in particular had a very annoying habit of talking across me. Equally, they are untrained and paid minimum wage. They are in effect babysitters. Good ones learn fast and are jewels beyond price. Others are - not so good.

    Bottom line is, they are needed because of massive and repeated policy failures over thirty years, under both governments. If we had much smaller class sizes, or properly funded schools for those with medical or behavioural problems, they would not be needed. As we do not, if we don't have them we'll have an even worse mess and very quickly, no school system at all.

    It is a real problem that over those thirty years just one person with practical experience of education has been making policy (Estelle Morris). It's one reason why it's such a disaster. Badenoch is another such - an ignorant woman who mouths clichés that will appeal to her base without realising the implications of them.

    The further she is kept from education, the better for our education system.

    As it would have been had Truss, Gove and Gibb been.
    It's a specific example of the "backroom paper pushers" to be cut to "focus on Frontline services".
    Which can't be done without the support staff.
    If she meant that she's even madder. There aren't any other support staff now. Half the time in my final term I was doing technical support because there was nobody else available. We had a receptionist, an HR Secretary, a bursar, two science technicians and that was about it (and the science technicians have both quit).

    Who else could go? The cover supervisors? We were already all on full timetables and struggling to source supply. The TAs? Oh great, for the reasons I outlined above. The librarians? One has gone. The school nurse? We were down to 50% capacity there as well.

    They just don't fucking get it. But what's worse is they don't care about the damage they're doing to our children by their utter fucking stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and meddling, while pretending hypocritically that they do.
    And that is true about a whole stack of issues. They don't care. Yet the people who are directly affected by the consequences of their uncaring malevolence have been told that the fault lies with education professionals.
    The vast majority of the selectorate who are about to vote Truss in haven't been inside a school since the 1950s.
    1850s, surely.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,728
    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    As the established church yes, just appoint more conservative bishops.

    The Conservatives also had a 23% lead over Labour amongst Anglicans at the last general election

    http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/religion-and-party-preference-in-2019/
    Presumably that stat owes a lot to the age structure of Anglicans?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    edited July 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,994
    IanB2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFzbqFcePp8
    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,658
    edited July 2022
    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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)

    http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/religion-and-party-preference-in-2019/

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,003
    edited July 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    Slighty concerned with the phrase "pro-trans", and the consequent portrayal of different views as "anti-trans".

    The likes of Maya Forstater and J K Rowling are not "anti-trans".

    That is an impression that certain activists and lobby groups want to create for political reasons.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,689
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,658
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    As the established church yes, just appoint more conservative bishops.

    The Conservatives also had a 23% lead over Labour amongst Anglicans at the last general election

    http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/religion-and-party-preference-in-2019/
    Presumably that stat owes a lot to the age structure of Anglicans?
    The Church of England is and likely always will be a church whose congregation is mainly over 50
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,305
    Tres said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    Badenoch:

    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


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=6d94871b81fb663cf7366c65891fbe26

    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.
    I would have said the whole problem is far too many wannabe Francos on left and right.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,003
    HYUFD said:


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

    Liz Truss interview: My mum would vote for me, I’m not sure about dad. All triple-A* star pupils would get Oxbridge interviews, says the No 10 favourite, as she reveals her love for Reagan, a sexually explicit rap song and radical thinking

    ?

    That's a hell of a lot of oxford interviews given the way A* are handed out like confetti.

    Those getting 3 A* grade A levels aren't that high a number, even if those getting at least 1 A* or A grade might be.

    Truss herself says she “I got an A in English which was a massive surprise actually, an A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths.”
    AIUI the numbers of AAA grades have increased as much as the number of First Class degrees. Grade inflation.

    Truss would have taken her A-levels in the early 1980s (?).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,630
    edited July 2022
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFzbqFcePp8
    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.
This discussion has been closed.