Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why the war on wokeism won’t work for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    'I really feel I must share these pics with you just to show what kids are up to nowadays.'

    'Shocking! Disgusting! Any more?'
    Lol. I have plenty more. He sent me a bunch. Some are quite shocking. But I don’t want to disturb the mods, or give any of our more fragile commenters a heart attack
    Are those messages waterproof or temporary?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    'I really feel I must share these pics with you just to show what kids are up to nowadays.'

    'Shocking! Disgusting! Any more?'
    Lol. I have plenty more. He sent me a bunch. Some are quite shocking. But I don’t want to disturb the mods, or give any of our more fragile commenters a heart attack
    Are those messages waterproof or temporary?
    Henna 'tattoos'? Last a week to 10 days.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    'I really feel I must share these pics with you just to show what kids are up to nowadays.'

    'Shocking! Disgusting! Any more?'
    Lol. I have plenty more. He sent me a bunch. Some are quite shocking. But I don’t want to disturb the mods, or give any of our more fragile commenters a heart attack
    Are those messages waterproof or temporary?
    Both, I think
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    Most would consider that extremely "woke".
    Presumably it doesn't raise your ire for some reason?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    'I really feel I must share these pics with you just to show what kids are up to nowadays.'

    'Shocking! Disgusting! Any more?'
    Lol. I have plenty more. He sent me a bunch. Some are quite shocking. But I don’t want to disturb the mods, or give any of our more fragile commenters a heart attack
    Are those messages waterproof or temporary?
    Henna 'tattoos'? Last a week to 10 days.
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    'I really feel I must share these pics with you just to show what kids are up to nowadays.'

    'Shocking! Disgusting! Any more?'
    Lol. I have plenty more. He sent me a bunch. Some are quite shocking. But I don’t want to disturb the mods, or give any of our more fragile commenters a heart attack
    Are those messages waterproof or temporary?
    Both, I think
    Sounds about right - not something to have permanently. Holiday stuff.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,367
    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    I'm not really au fait with the FetLife, but can kink really remain kink if it's mainstream, especially if Liz from HR with the terrible dress sense is its postergirl?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    I'm not really au fait with the FetLife, but can kink really remain kink if it's mainstream, especially if Liz from HR with the terrible dress sense is its postergirl?
    A valid point
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161
    edited August 28
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    Most would consider that extremely "woke".
    Presumably it doesn't raise your ire for some reason?
    Tradition, innit? Posh upper class stuff. Just read any decent social history of the "public schools" in the C18 to [edit] almost today - 1960 or so? Adults flagellating youths, youths flagellating slightly smaller youths. Or one of the more insightful autobiographies such as Worsley's Flannelled Fool.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    Most would consider that extremely "woke".
    Presumably it doesn't raise your ire for some reason?
    It’s not woke at all to be openly submissive to the patriarchy. As in: literally submissive

    It’s the opposite of Woke. A lot of Wokesters get really angry at sub women. It’s a known battlefront
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Well im shortly off to piss about in glorious Scotland for a bit. By the time i return there will be a new..... oh no, there won't.
    Laters you peoples
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230
    edited August 28
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161
    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    I happen to know through sources that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Oh thanks, that's interesting - something to keep an eye open for.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    Most would consider that extremely "woke".
    Presumably it doesn't raise your ire for some reason?
    Tradition, innit? Posh upper class stuff. Just read any decent social history of the "public schools" in the C18 to [edit] almost today - 1960 or so? Adults flagellating youths, youths flagellating slightly smaller youths. Or one of the more insightful autobiographies such as Worsley's Flannelled Fool.
    That’s quite a spectacular misreading of these tattoos

  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230
    edited August 28
    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    I happen to know through sources that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Oh thanks, that's interesting - something to keep an eye open for.
    There were a lot of confused faces amongst energy industry bods. It was expected to be published immediately. I’ve not been paying close attention so I guess it could have been squeezed out under a shitstorm.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,967
    I wonder if Truss will still be "ruling out more direct energy bill help for all" when the price cap's getting to 6 grand a year and half the country's small businesses have closed due to energy costs.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230

    I wonder if Truss will still be "ruling out more direct energy bill help for all" when the price cap's getting to 6 grand a year and half the country's small businesses have closed due to energy costs.

    Probably, because she’s a doctrinaire dipshit.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161
    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    I happen to know through sources that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Oh thanks, that's interesting - something to keep an eye open for.
    There were a lot of confused faces amongst energy industry bods. It was expected to be published immediately. I’ve not been paying close attention so I guess it could have been squeezed out under a shitstorm.
    Hmm, two possible interpretations for keeping it schtum till the leadership race is over - (a) goodie to be saved for the front steps of No 10, and (b) shit sandwich of the kind you suspect, sorry no fracking after all, it's the experts' fault.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,367

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    I'm not really au fait with the FetLife, but can kink really remain kink if it's mainstream, especially if Liz from HR with the terrible dress sense is its postergirl?
    FL itself is having a bit of a crisis as the more popular it gets the less kinky it becomes.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,408
    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    I honestly think she would not get away with that, should she try.

    Too many Conservative MPs are too in touch with their constituents. And there are a few more from the "not South" at present.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230
    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    I happen to know through sources that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Oh thanks, that's interesting - something to keep an eye open for.
    There were a lot of confused faces amongst energy industry bods. It was expected to be published immediately. I’ve not been paying close attention so I guess it could have been squeezed out under a shitstorm.
    Hmm, two possible interpretations for keeping it schtum till the leadership race is over - (a) goodie to be saved for the front steps of No 10, and (b) shit sandwich of the kind you suspect, sorry no fracking after all, it's the experts' fault.
    Bluntly, I’m about 10%/90% on that one. I’ve seen nothing that would suggest fracking is viable on the UK mainland. It’s a canard to distract from the fact that we’re deliberately refusing to build the cheapest form of energy because two tedious old duffers whinge about their view.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,367
    Tres said:

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    I'm not really au fait with the FetLife, but can kink really remain kink if it's mainstream, especially if Liz from HR with the terrible dress sense is its postergirl?
    FL itself is having a bit of a crisis as the more popular it gets the less kinky it becomes.
    George at Asda gimp range coming to a store near you.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,753
    edited August 28
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    Most would consider that extremely "woke".
    Presumably it doesn't raise your ire for some reason?
    I don't think free expression between consenting adults is woke - tolerating it was mainstream a generation ago

    What would be woke is:

    - legally enforceable anti-discrimination provisions for the kinky
    - copmulsory kink awareness courses at work and in schools
    - quotas for the kinky on company boards or in Parliament
    - mandatory dunegons in offices
    - flying the Leather Pride flag everywhere, especially in businesses which clearly don't give a damn but are terrified of Twittermobs.

    Have I just written part of the next Lib Dem manifesto?
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    HMG has many silly positions. Depending on the study, it’s between parity and 50% more (but falling due to economy of scale). It’s expected to be parity or lower by the activation of the next tranche of offshore farms. However, onshore facilities can be activated far more quickly and for lower capital investment. So why not do both? Aside from wanting to avoid upsetting Mrs Shitface and Mr Gammon of Crabby Bottom.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    LDLF said:

    I am happy to be corrected here, but from what little attention I have paid to the two candidates' talking points, the one who seems to bring up 'woke nonsense' more is not Truss but Sunak. I sense that after this leadership contest he is likely to be reinvented as some sort of 'Centrist Dad' (assuming he loses of course), but for now, he seems the more stridently 'anti-woke' of the two.

    One of the problems with the term 'Woke' is that it has become a bit of a yah boo word. It could mean all sorts of things, from 'aware of the history of racism' to 'all white people are racist', so say nothing of views on gender identity. If someone in a survey said they were anti-woke I would have no idea what they meant.

    I think the problem is that 'woke' is treated sometimes as an overarching concept, and is used far too easily as a deflection to avoid serious points in reply.

    IMO it's a problem amongst activists who think that people who do not agree with them forfeit all right to an opinion.

    'I don't have to explain myself to men' or similar is not uncommon amongst some feminist activists, and similar exists in trans-activist circles.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864

    Or, for example, I would regard this as dishonest "wokery"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62701624

    There are many well-paid jobs at the top of the Royal Household. I'd be more impressed by Charles, if they were not occupied by people drawn from a very small, very affluent, very well-connected portion of our society.

    So, my problem with "woke" is when it changes nothing.

    So you reckon Charles should have rejected the invitation to guest edit on the basis that he doesn't have enough senior black employees?

    I'm not sure why that would be better.
    I would be very sceptical that the "invitation" to guest edit came out of the blue. These things don't just happen. Someone arranged this -- my guess would be someone in Charles' entourage suggested this rather than a staffer at the Voice.

    Charles has very great influence & patronage -- far more than you or I. It is not unreasonable to ask how many of his senior employees, e.g., went to public school, or are from a poor background, or are black. And, I think that would be a more powerful & direct statement of his actual beliefs.

    Now in fact, I don't read the Voice, so it is arguably none of my business.

    But, I suspect most readers of the Voice are well aware of, for example, "the Notting Hill Carnival, the annual Caribbean festival that takes place in west London over the August bank holiday."

    Still, if they need Charles to alert them to steel bands in West London, fine.

    Let's get Charles to guest-edit a pb.com thread. Or Andrew, as he is looking for something to do.

    I predict a riot.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 251
    I'm at the point now where, when I see Leon go on one of his post-blizzards (whether it's woke, aliens, AI, Covid, or whatever), I immediately check the news to see what discussion he's trying to steer the forum away from. Obviously in this case it's Truss's 'tax cuts not hand outs'. Frankly,it's tiresome.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210
    If “woke” is to become an election-winning issues, its would-be scourges have to explain how it will gain a salience that “politically correct” never did.

    Because they’re the same thing. PC Gone Mad fuelled a lot of Daily Mail front pages but there’s no evidence that it swung any Westminster seats. Maybe the war on woke will turn out differently, but I’ve never read any convincing explanation how it will.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230
    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    HMG has many silly positions. Depending on the study, it’s between parity and 50% more (but falling due to economy of scale). It’s expected to be parity or lower by the activation of the next tranche of offshore farms. However, onshore facilities can be activated far more quickly and for lower capital investment. So why not do both? Aside from wanting to avoid upsetting Mrs Shitface and Mr Gammon of Crabby Bottom.
    Just wanted to add that I’m not getting at you JL, if the government takes a position we should expect it to be honest and well informed. I get annoyed that they’re using the advances in offshore (good) to pander to a blocking minority if their client voters, harming everyone else at the same time.
  • RichardrRichardr Posts: 34
    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    Assuming that is true, isn't that a huge indictment of the current government, whose war on woke is a major part of their offer?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931

    If “woke” is to become an election-winning issues, its would-be scourges have to explain how it will gain a salience that “politically correct” never did.

    Because they’re the same thing. PC Gone Mad fuelled a lot of Daily Mail front pages but there’s no evidence that it swung any Westminster seats. Maybe the war on woke will turn out differently, but I’ve never read any convincing explanation how it will.


    Lol. QED. This is literally what I posted about an hour ago



    “I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society”

    That’s you that is. Number 3
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938
    Fishing said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    Most would consider that extremely "woke".
    Presumably it doesn't raise your ire for some reason?
    I don't think free expression between consenting adults is woke - tolerating it was mainstream a generation ago

    What would be woke is:

    - legally enforceable anti-discrimination provisions for the kinky
    - copmulsory kink awareness courses at work and in schools
    - quotas for the kinky on company boards or in Parliament
    - mandatory dunegons in offices
    - flying the Leather Pride flag everywhere, especially in businesses which clearly don't give a damn but are terrified of Twittermobs.

    Have I just written part of the next Lib Dem manifesto?
    Excellent.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210
    So explain rather than assert, @Leon . How’s it different and how does this impact J Random Voter?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    edited August 28
    The reactionary right, get energy from their outrage at Woke. That in itself is not particularly new. The used to rage and whip themselves up about other things. It’s what they do. They are the children of Mary Whitehouse. The trick is to remember they represent no one but themselves.

    Which is not to say that there aren’t problems on the left, some have questions to answer and fuel divisions for their political ends. They get energy from the outrage of the right. The McCarthyite tendency to censor and cancel should be challenged. Like the right, they too are a minority.

    These extremes feed off each other. Ignore them both. Do not let them divide us. There are more important problems. The very last thing any of us need is a culture war.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,651
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Actually those kids at Newquay with the kinky tatts might explain why Truss feels able to flaunt her own proclivities

    Kink is mainstream now

    Most would consider that extremely "woke".
    Presumably it doesn't raise your ire for some reason?
    Tradition, innit? Posh upper class stuff. Just read any decent social history of the "public schools" in the C18 to [edit] almost today - 1960 or so? Adults flagellating youths, youths flagellating slightly smaller youths. Or one of the more insightful autobiographies such as Worsley's Flannelled Fool.
    That’s quite a spectacular misreading of these tattoos

    What would a part-time flint-knapper know about tattoos?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    edited August 28

    So explain rather than assert, @Leon . How’s it different and how does this impact J Random Voter?

    Why do I have to spoon feed you? Do some reading. Start with the recent Virginia gubernatorial election, which turned on Woke issues, to the advantage of the GOP


    “What went wrong in Virginia was 'stupid wokeness': Democrat strategist James Carville blames progressives after Republican Glenn Youngkin trounced Terry McAuliffe in Virginia and calls for 'some of these people to go to woke detox'”

    Carville said Democrats are harming their own party by peddling wokeness”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10165347/Democrat-strategist-James-Carville-blames-stupid-wokeness-Virginia-election-defeat.html
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    Andy Burnham caught telling a particularly daft porkie:

    Interesting interview with Andy Burnham in today’s @Sunday_Mail - dailyrecord.co.uk/news/andy-burn…
    I was a bit perplexed by this part of it tho - Andy and I met on Wednesday afternoon in St Andrew’s House and had a constructive discussion about a range of issues.


    https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon/status/1563834380354830338?s=21&t=HnkPaCGO7l97qS-NLk1JPA
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,269

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    The larger the turbine, the more efficient (for current scales)

    The largest turbines are essentially not installable on land - moving 100m blades around etc. in shallow water that’s a barge. A normal barge.

    The sea has a tendency (especially in the shallow bits) to be fairly flat. This gives you lots of wind moving steadily, rather than interesting movement over hills and valleys.

    Also, in the sea you can place your array of turbines to maximise effectiveness, reduce interference etc more easily.

    So it is quite believable that offshore has dropped below onshore.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931

    I'm at the point now where, when I see Leon go on one of his post-blizzards (whether it's woke, aliens, AI, Covid, or whatever), I immediately check the news to see what discussion he's trying to steer the forum away from. Obviously in this case it's Truss's 'tax cuts not hand outs'. Frankly,it's tiresome.

    Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing


    🤫
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,771

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    And I'll happily bet a shiny sixpence that, when people pushed back against those attitudes, the response was pretty much the one we're seeing to the Woke today.

    Not just that, but a fair few people will have gone to their graves muttering about how the country was going to the dogs.
    I think that's exactly right. Every supporter of anything socially progressive in the last 50 years would have been deemed "woke" had the term existed at the time. The old biddies on the bus muttering about it being "political correctness gawn mad" are now muttering about "woke". Plus ca change and all that.

    It's a tool for those of the Daily Mail school of politics to sow division and hatred to further their own political ends. It works but that doesn't make it any less unedifying. Society has become more tolerant and kinder since I was born in the 1950's but if the anti-woke had there way we would probably still be back where we were.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    OllyT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    And I'll happily bet a shiny sixpence that, when people pushed back against those attitudes, the response was pretty much the one we're seeing to the Woke today.

    Not just that, but a fair few people will have gone to their graves muttering about how the country was going to the dogs.
    I think that's exactly right. Every supporter of anything socially progressive in the last 50 years would have been deemed "woke" had the term existed at the time. The old biddies on the bus muttering about it being "political correctness gawn mad" are now muttering about "woke". Plus ca change and all that.

    It's a tool for those of the Daily Mail school of politics to sow division and hatred to further their own political ends. It works but that doesn't make it any less unedifying. Society has become more tolerant and kinder since I was born in the 1950's but if the anti-woke had there way we would probably still be back where we were.

    There is no helping you guys. You are determined to be dim. I am about to give up
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    The larger the turbine, the more efficient (for current scales)

    The largest turbines are essentially not installable on land - moving 100m blades around etc. in shallow water that’s a barge. A normal barge.

    The sea has a tendency (especially in the shallow bits) to be fairly flat. This gives you lots of wind moving steadily, rather than interesting movement over hills and valleys.

    Also, in the sea you can place your array of turbines to maximise effectiveness, reduce interference etc more easily.

    So it is quite believable that offshore has dropped below onshore.
    You have to get the power to shore, which is the big headache, and salt corrosion makes maintenance hell. I spent an unproductive couple of years trying to sell cable condition monitoring research to a power company, and their feeder cables broke constantly. It’s the most recent generation of really big turbines that have made the difference and standardised construction and maintenance that make it possible.

    That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be building onshore as fast as we can buy the turbines.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,251
    The government thinks the young have been corrupted by communist university lecturers; too woke to vote Tory. It is easier for ministers to believe this than to acknowledge the truth: all the instincts here are Tory instincts. Desire to own property. Desire for a stable job to start a family. Desire to keep at least half of every pound you earn. The government has denied us all these things, and now it is shocked to find that those who should have been its core constituency — high-earning, aspirational young professionals — are turning away. Britain isn’t working. Little surprise young Brits are asking: why should we?

    This week: a howl into the void about a government that has denied the young all the nice things conservatism promises, and instead of fixing this comforts itself by choosing to believe we don’t vote Conservative because we are Too Woke.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/work-is-out-of-fashion-because-rewards-are-out-of-reach-gw60nr0t0 https://twitter.com/CharlotteIvers/status/1563819232919429120/photo/1
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    Jonathan said:

    The reactionary right, get energy from their outrage at Woke. That in itself is not particularly new. The used to rage and whip themselves up about other things. It’s what they do. They are the children of Mary Whitehouse. The trick is to remember they represent no one but themselves.

    Which is not to say that there aren’t problems on the left, some have questions to answer and fuel divisions for their political ends. They get energy from the outrage of the right. The McCarthyite tendency to censor and cancel should be challenged. Like the right, they too are a minority.

    These extremes feed off each other. Ignore them both. Do not let them divide us. There are more important problems. The very last thing any of us need is a culture war.

    Nice sentiments, but a bit late, I fear. The war has been underway for some time
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    The larger the turbine, the more efficient (for current scales)

    The largest turbines are essentially not installable on land - moving 100m blades around etc. in shallow water that’s a barge. A normal barge.

    The sea has a tendency (especially in the shallow bits) to be fairly flat. This gives you lots of wind moving steadily, rather than interesting movement over hills and valleys.

    Also, in the sea you can place your array of turbines to maximise effectiveness, reduce interference etc more easily.

    So it is quite believable that offshore has dropped below onshore.
    You have to get the power to shore, which is the big headache, and salt corrosion makes maintenance hell. I spent an unproductive couple of years trying to sell cable condition monitoring research to a power company, and their feeder cables broke constantly. It’s the most recent generation of really big turbines that have made the difference and standardised construction and maintenance that make it possible.

    That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be building onshore as fast as we can buy the turbines.
    Both onshore and offshore are needed, along with everything else.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161

    Andy Burnham caught telling a particularly daft porkie:

    Interesting interview with Andy Burnham in today’s @Sunday_Mail - dailyrecord.co.uk/news/andy-burn…
    I was a bit perplexed by this part of it tho - Andy and I met on Wednesday afternoon in St Andrew’s House and had a constructive discussion about a range of issues.


    https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon/status/1563834380354830338?s=21&t=HnkPaCGO7l97qS-NLk1JPA

    Maybe he wrote his account in advance without bothering with tiresome details like reality?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,269
    edited August 28
    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    The larger the turbine, the more efficient (for current scales)

    The largest turbines are essentially not installable on land - moving 100m blades around etc. in shallow water that’s a barge. A normal barge.

    The sea has a tendency (especially in the shallow bits) to be fairly flat. This gives you lots of wind moving steadily, rather than interesting movement over hills and valleys.

    Also, in the sea you can place your array of turbines to maximise effectiveness, reduce interference etc more easily.

    So it is quite believable that offshore has dropped below onshore.
    You have to get the power to shore, which is the big headache, and salt corrosion makes maintenance hell. I spent an unproductive couple of years trying to sell cable condition monitoring research to a power company, and their feeder cables broke constantly. It’s the most recent generation of really big turbines that have made the difference and standardised construction and maintenance that make it possible.

    That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be building onshore as fast as we can buy the turbines.
    On the timescale of the current energy crisis, onshore vs offshore is a red herring. In the very short term - 2-5 years - you might get more installed capacity (a bit) with onshore, but after that it is really down to how much you chose to install.

    No political party is going to spend political capital for essentially no difference in outcome.

    EDIT : it’s a bit like power storage. People point out that shipping containers full of batteries are expensive. The alternative view is that unlike some other schemes, there is next to no way to *stop* them being installed. So the containerised battery stores win out on that.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230

    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    The larger the turbine, the more efficient (for current scales)

    The largest turbines are essentially not installable on land - moving 100m blades around etc. in shallow water that’s a barge. A normal barge.

    The sea has a tendency (especially in the shallow bits) to be fairly flat. This gives you lots of wind moving steadily, rather than interesting movement over hills and valleys.

    Also, in the sea you can place your array of turbines to maximise effectiveness, reduce interference etc more easily.

    So it is quite believable that offshore has dropped below onshore.
    You have to get the power to shore, which is the big headache, and salt corrosion makes maintenance hell. I spent an unproductive couple of years trying to sell cable condition monitoring research to a power company, and their feeder cables broke constantly. It’s the most recent generation of really big turbines that have made the difference and standardised construction and maintenance that make it possible.

    That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be building onshore as fast as we can buy the turbines.
    On the timescale of the current energy crisis, onshore vs offshore is a red herring. In the very short term - 2-5 years - you might get more installed capacity (a bit) with onshore, but after that it is really down to how much you chose to install.

    No political party is going to spend political capital for essentially no difference in outcome.
    That short term capacity is therms of gas displaced off the grid and increased resilience. We need power power now, onshore offers much faster deployment (assuming you can get the turbines). There is no reason not to do both apart from upsetting a tiny number of people.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,367
    OllyT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    And I'll happily bet a shiny sixpence that, when people pushed back against those attitudes, the response was pretty much the one we're seeing to the Woke today.

    Not just that, but a fair few people will have gone to their graves muttering about how the country was going to the dogs.
    I think that's exactly right. Every supporter of anything socially progressive in the last 50 years would have been deemed "woke" had the term existed at the time. The old biddies on the bus muttering about it being "political correctness gawn mad" are now muttering about "woke". Plus ca change and all that.

    It's a tool for those of the Daily Mail school of politics to sow division and hatred to further their own political ends. It works but that doesn't make it any less unedifying. Society has become more tolerant and kinder since I was born in the 1950's but if the anti-woke had there way we would probably still be back where we were.

    the anti-wokers are just the descendants of those who were aghast at the thought of giving poor people and woman the vote
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Leadership election next summer kids.

    Let's hope BF get a market up soon.


    Ione Wells
    @ionewells
    New: Liz Truss has "ruled out" more direct support to everyone to help with energy bills, sources close to her tell me.

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1563820234259169280
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    edited August 28
    For the edification of sheltered, elderly PB-ers who actually think girls wearing Spank Me Daddy tatts are “Woke” I adduce this evidence:


    “Tired of feminism and the feminist movement trying to turn you into a man? Tired of being shamed for being a housewife or a submissive wife? Support the patriarchy with this tshirt made for anti-feminists and patriarchs who embrace men as king

    “This shirt is a great gift or present for a husband, wife or anyone who supports traditional marriage, traditional gender roles or anti-feminism. Also great for anyone who embraces the dom sub lifestyle of BDSM or DDLG.

    “Get this t-shirt and support men!”



    Women are using their sexual submissiveness as a way of deliberately ANNOYING the Woke. Because it enrages the Woke

    I doubt those girls in Newquay are aware of all these nuances. It’s probably a fashion and a desire to shock, with perhaps a dash of genuine submissiveness. But that is the cultural subtext
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Labour must be wetting themselves if Ione Wells source is reflecting what will happen under Liz 'no crisis' Truss.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,205
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938

    I'm at the point now where, when I see Leon go on one of his post-blizzards (whether it's woke, aliens, AI, Covid, or whatever), I immediately check the news to see what discussion he's trying to steer the forum away from. Obviously in this case it's Truss's 'tax cuts not hand outs'. Frankly,it's tiresome.

    I might not agree with Leon, but I don't think he is that devious.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,269
    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    The larger the turbine, the more efficient (for current scales)

    The largest turbines are essentially not installable on land - moving 100m blades around etc. in shallow water that’s a barge. A normal barge.

    The sea has a tendency (especially in the shallow bits) to be fairly flat. This gives you lots of wind moving steadily, rather than interesting movement over hills and valleys.

    Also, in the sea you can place your array of turbines to maximise effectiveness, reduce interference etc more easily.

    So it is quite believable that offshore has dropped below onshore.
    You have to get the power to shore, which is the big headache, and salt corrosion makes maintenance hell. I spent an unproductive couple of years trying to sell cable condition monitoring research to a power company, and their feeder cables broke constantly. It’s the most recent generation of really big turbines that have made the difference and standardised construction and maintenance that make it possible.

    That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be building onshore as fast as we can buy the turbines.
    On the timescale of the current energy crisis, onshore vs offshore is a red herring. In the very short term - 2-5 years - you might get more installed capacity (a bit) with onshore, but after that it is really down to how much you chose to install.

    No political party is going to spend political capital for essentially no difference in outcome.
    That short term capacity is therms of gas displaced off the grid and increased resilience. We need power power now, onshore offers much faster deployment (assuming you can get the turbines). There is no reason not to do both apart from upsetting a tiny number of people.
    You can’t deploy either in a matter of months. Otherwise we are back to @HYUFD table thumping that we can simply get x million engineers to produce a baby in 9 yocto seconds….
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161

    Leadership election next summer kids.

    Let's hope BF get a market up soon.


    Ione Wells
    @ionewells
    New: Liz Truss has "ruled out" more direct support to everyone to help with energy bills, sources close to her tell me.

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1563820234259169280

    Mm, and she also says later

    'Separately, I'm told Boris Johnson is expected to give a speech in his last week as prime minister about the future of energy. A No10 source said this would "emphasise that we need long term solutions not just short term blow-cushioning on the cost of living."'

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1563820239971926021

    Someone's getting their leadership election position in early, I suspect.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,367
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    The people you mention are just grifters who have worked out there is a lot of money to be made in trotting out Fox News esque messaging on social media.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230
    edited August 28

    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    The larger the turbine, the more efficient (for current scales)

    The largest turbines are essentially not installable on land - moving 100m blades around etc. in shallow water that’s a barge. A normal barge.

    The sea has a tendency (especially in the shallow bits) to be fairly flat. This gives you lots of wind moving steadily, rather than interesting movement over hills and valleys.

    Also, in the sea you can place your array of turbines to maximise effectiveness, reduce interference etc more easily.

    So it is quite believable that offshore has dropped below onshore.
    You have to get the power to shore, which is the big headache, and salt corrosion makes maintenance hell. I spent an unproductive couple of years trying to sell cable condition monitoring research to a power company, and their feeder cables broke constantly. It’s the most recent generation of really big turbines that have made the difference and standardised construction and maintenance that make it possible.

    That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be building onshore as fast as we can buy the turbines.
    On the timescale of the current energy crisis, onshore vs offshore is a red herring. In the very short term - 2-5 years - you might get more installed capacity (a bit) with onshore, but after that it is really down to how much you chose to install.

    No political party is going to spend political capital for essentially no difference in outcome.
    That short term capacity is therms of gas displaced off the grid and increased resilience. We need power power now, onshore offers much faster deployment (assuming you can get the turbines). There is no reason not to do both apart from upsetting a tiny number of people.
    You can’t deploy either in a matter of months. Otherwise we are back to @HYUFD table thumping that we can simply get x million engineers to produce a baby in 9 yocto seconds….
    I’d give it a good try. More seriously, it’s a hoary phrase but planting trees and all that. The energy crisis will last years. We should be starting this tomorrow. If we can deliver in months, great. If not, ASAP is better than “sometime”. I’d start by asking every operator what sites they’d like to open and then shove through emergency planning permission at the national level for the five biggest and fastest.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,594

    Leadership election next summer kids.

    Let's hope BF get a market up soon.


    Ione Wells
    @ionewells
    New: Liz Truss has "ruled out" more direct support to everyone to help with energy bills, sources close to her tell me.

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1563820234259169280

    Buckle up
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Tres said:

    OllyT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    And I'll happily bet a shiny sixpence that, when people pushed back against those attitudes, the response was pretty much the one we're seeing to the Woke today.

    Not just that, but a fair few people will have gone to their graves muttering about how the country was going to the dogs.
    I think that's exactly right. Every supporter of anything socially progressive in the last 50 years would have been deemed "woke" had the term existed at the time. The old biddies on the bus muttering about it being "political correctness gawn mad" are now muttering about "woke". Plus ca change and all that.

    It's a tool for those of the Daily Mail school of politics to sow division and hatred to further their own political ends. It works but that doesn't make it any less unedifying. Society has become more tolerant and kinder since I was born in the 1950's but if the anti-woke had there way we would probably still be back where we were.

    the anti-wokers are just the descendants of those who were aghast at the thought of giving poor people and woman the vote
    A thick post, in reply admittedly to another. If you think woke is not the hating side, you haven't been paying attention to what what JK Rowling is putting up with or to the campaign against for instance Lesbians who won't entertain the thought of trans women. You dimly equate that with the gay rights movement which, actually, was never about ANYONE being told they had an obligation to sleep with anyone they didn't want to. is that a trivial difference?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Leadership election next summer kids.

    Let's hope BF get a market up soon.


    Ione Wells
    @ionewells
    New: Liz Truss has "ruled out" more direct support to everyone to help with energy bills, sources close to her tell me.

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1563820234259169280

    Buckle up
    direct support *to everyone* it says...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162
    OllyT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    And I'll happily bet a shiny sixpence that, when people pushed back against those attitudes, the response was pretty much the one we're seeing to the Woke today.

    Not just that, but a fair few people will have gone to their graves muttering about how the country was going to the dogs.
    I think that's exactly right. Every supporter of anything socially progressive in the last 50 years would have been deemed "woke" had the term existed at the time. The old biddies on the bus muttering about it being "political correctness gawn mad" are now muttering about "woke". Plus ca change and all that.

    It's a tool for those of the Daily Mail school of politics to sow division and hatred to further their own political ends. It works but that doesn't make it any less unedifying. Society has become more tolerant and kinder since I was born in the 1950's but if the anti-woke had there way we would probably still be back where we were.

    I think the intolerance and bigotry is now directed at different things. Not that it has gone away.

    The problem is that calling yourself "progressive" does not mean that what you say and do is progressive. There are plenty who describe themselves as such who want to do things that are really quite reactionary and say stuff about other people they have classified as "beyond the pale" which they would never tolerate being said against people they like.

    Intolerance and bigotry have not gone away. They've simply found new channels and targets.

    Ignore how people classify themselves. Look at what they say and do. Describe that rather than go along with their self-description which is almost invariably self-serving. It is both illuminating and depressing.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,408
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    Leon is sort-of right but not for those reasons. The reason woke matters, even if most voters do not care, is that CCHQ will use below-radar, microtargeted, social media messages to wind up those voters whose profiles show they do care. Other voters will be sent different messages. Woke can swing an election even if most people couldn't pick it out of a police line-up.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,205
    Tres said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    The people you mention are just grifters who have worked out there is a lot of money to be made in trotting out Fox News esque messaging on social media.
    Yeah well, this is the same as what they say about people like Robin D'Angelo and the income they get from selling books, doing 'diversity consulting' work etc. Its a pretty cynical view but it may well be a factor in how people end up where they are.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,627
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
    You cannot eliminate anything by having a 'war on' it. Anti-woke warriors would be much better off developing a philosophy that they would like to see the world moving toward, and embracing and fighting for that.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,408
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
    Universities drop Chaucer and Shakespeare as ‘decolonisation’ takes root
    Many British universities have sought to liberate their courses from ‘white, Western and Eurocentric’ knowledge

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/27/universities-drop-chaucer-shakespeare-decolonisation-takes-root/ (£££)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
    You cannot eliminate anything by having a 'war on' it. Anti-woke warriors would be much better off developing a philosophy that they would like to see the world moving toward, and embracing and fighting for that.
    How about The Enlightenment, and judging people by their character not by their skin colour. That’s a good start
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230
    Well, thanks @Malmesbury for the interesting debate on the big issue of the day but it seems PB is now going on it’s usual insane boat trip along the Upper Crackpot about something the vast majority of the population don’t give a shit about. I’m off to lose badly at Magic: The Gathering.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
    Universities drop Chaucer and Shakespeare as ‘decolonisation’ takes root
    Many British universities have sought to liberate their courses from ‘white, Western and Eurocentric’ knowledge

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/27/universities-drop-chaucer-shakespeare-decolonisation-takes-root/ (£££)

    Stop paying universities to teach rubbish
    No Conservative government should use scarce resources to subsidise the brainwashing and anti-intellectualism that thrives on many campuses

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/28/stop-paying-universities-teach-rubbish/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,269
    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
    Sources tell me that the Geological Survey submitted their report on the updated science of fracking weeks ago. No one knows what’s in it yet and I’ve not seen any publication so I assume it says the same as the last one: less recoverable reserve than expected, not economically viable even at current market values, still causes earthquakes that people don’t like.

    Build onshore wind. It is, by every metric, the cheapest form of energy and every MWh generated on any day is one less that needs to be paid with gas at 580p a therm. Sod the NIMBYS.
    Aiui HMG's position is that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind.
    The larger the turbine, the more efficient (for current scales)

    The largest turbines are essentially not installable on land - moving 100m blades around etc. in shallow water that’s a barge. A normal barge.

    The sea has a tendency (especially in the shallow bits) to be fairly flat. This gives you lots of wind moving steadily, rather than interesting movement over hills and valleys.

    Also, in the sea you can place your array of turbines to maximise effectiveness, reduce interference etc more easily.

    So it is quite believable that offshore has dropped below onshore.
    You have to get the power to shore, which is the big headache, and salt corrosion makes maintenance hell. I spent an unproductive couple of years trying to sell cable condition monitoring research to a power company, and their feeder cables broke constantly. It’s the most recent generation of really big turbines that have made the difference and standardised construction and maintenance that make it possible.

    That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be building onshore as fast as we can buy the turbines.
    On the timescale of the current energy crisis, onshore vs offshore is a red herring. In the very short term - 2-5 years - you might get more installed capacity (a bit) with onshore, but after that it is really down to how much you chose to install.

    No political party is going to spend political capital for essentially no difference in outcome.
    That short term capacity is therms of gas displaced off the grid and increased resilience. We need power power now, onshore offers much faster deployment (assuming you can get the turbines). There is no reason not to do both apart from upsetting a tiny number of people.
    You can’t deploy either in a matter of months. Otherwise we are back to @HYUFD table thumping that we can simply get x million engineers to produce a baby in 9 yocto seconds….
    I’d give it a good try. More seriously, it’s a hoary phrase but planting trees and all that. The energy crisis will last years. We should be starting this tomorrow. If we can deliver in months, great. If not, ASAP is better than “sometime”. I’d start by asking every operator what sites they’d like to open and then shove through emergency planning permission at the national level for the five biggest and fastest.
    When you are talking in years, there will be little difference in delivery time for onshore vs offshore.

    This is starting to remind me of the shadow factory vs build-lots-of-Gloucester-Gladiatirs-now arguments just before WWII.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    Where does it say Daddy?
    It says spank me.
    It doesn't even specify male.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    Where does it say Daddy?
    It says spank me.
    It doesn't even specify male.
    Quite. Very woke.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,511

    Andy Burnham caught telling a particularly daft porkie:

    Interesting interview with Andy Burnham in today’s @Sunday_Mail - dailyrecord.co.uk/news/andy-burn…
    I was a bit perplexed by this part of it tho - Andy and I met on Wednesday afternoon in St Andrew’s House and had a constructive discussion about a range of issues.


    https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon/status/1563834380354830338?s=21&t=HnkPaCGO7l97qS-NLk1JPA

    Nope. The interview was done before Sturgeon booked a meeting and didn't get updated before being published.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
    You cannot eliminate anything by having a 'war on' it. Anti-woke warriors would be much better off developing a philosophy that they would like to see the world moving toward, and embracing and fighting for that.
    How about The Enlightenment, and judging people by their character not by their skin colour. That’s a good start
    How would MLK feel now, to see racial segregation being re-introduced at schools and universities in the US?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    Where does it say Daddy?
    It says spank me.
    It doesn't even specify male.
    It’s very hard to show this without being obscene. I’m trying not to annoy the mods!

    There are loads of photos like this




  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161
    Off myself now too - but just noticed this while waiting on the black pudding to cook. Something HMG has failed to admit, albeit not so much shit sandwich as ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/28/britons-need-to-be-less-squeamish-about-drinking-water-from-sewage-says-agency-head

    'British people need to be “less squeamish” about drinking water derived from sewage, the boss of the Environment Agency has said.

    Writing in the Sunday Times, Sir James Bevan outlined measures the government, water companies and ordinary people should be taking to avoid severe droughts.

    He said: “Part of the solution will be to reprocess the water that results from sewage treatment and turn it back into drinking water – perfectly safe and healthy, but not something many people fancy.”

    [...] Bevan, who has been chief executive of the Environment Agency since 2015, called on the government to “show political will” to make changes and also called on members of the public to do their bit to help reduce water waste.'
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,269
    OnboardG1 said:

    Well, thanks @Malmesbury for the interesting debate on the big issue of the day but it seems PB is now going on it’s usual insane boat trip along the Upper Crackpot about something the vast majority of the population don’t give a shit about. I’m off to lose badly at Magic: The Gathering.

    You want crackpot?

    How about this for an instant energy supply?

    You detonate nuclear devices underground at a steady rate. The resulting hot rock is used to generate electricity.

    Side benefits - in the madman’s checkers theory of nuclear deterrence, we’d be way out in front.

    “Fuck your threats. We nuke ourselves, every 20 minutes. For shits and giggles.”

    #TellerSaidThisIsABitEdgy
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    kjh said:

    I'm at the point now where, when I see Leon go on one of his post-blizzards (whether it's woke, aliens, AI, Covid, or whatever), I immediately check the news to see what discussion he's trying to steer the forum away from. Obviously in this case it's Truss's 'tax cuts not hand outs'. Frankly,it's tiresome.

    I might not agree with Leon, but I don't think he is that devious.
    Can't see why @Leon would want to divert us from the news.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,599

    NEW THREAD

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161

    OnboardG1 said:

    Well, thanks @Malmesbury for the interesting debate on the big issue of the day but it seems PB is now going on it’s usual insane boat trip along the Upper Crackpot about something the vast majority of the population don’t give a shit about. I’m off to lose badly at Magic: The Gathering.

    You want crackpot?

    How about this for an instant energy supply?

    You detonate nuclear devices underground at a steady rate. The resulting hot rock is used to generate electricity.

    Side benefits - in the madman’s checkers theory of nuclear deterrence, we’d be way out in front.

    “Fuck your threats. We nuke ourselves, every 20 minutes. For shits and giggles.”

    #TellerSaidThisIsABitEdgy
    That would only make sense, on a guess, if those were fusion devices with lithium deuteride - else you might as well plonk the fuel in a fission reactor. And how does one get the working fluid through a heat exchanger which is being nuked repeatedly??
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    Leadership election next summer kids.

    Let's hope BF get a market up soon.


    Ione Wells
    @ionewells
    New: Liz Truss has "ruled out" more direct support to everyone to help with energy bills, sources close to her tell me.

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1563820234259169280

    Buckle up

    If that report on no help package is true then the entire mainstream media look really, really stupid.

    They've being seeing huge help package U-turns from Truss for weeks now, attributing these to sources close to Truss or pressure from restive MPs or opinion polls or the treasury or whatever.

    In the end, its perfectly clear these puppies had nothing but their own political opinions and their own political agenda.

    Either Truss or someone close to her has a pair of conkers. Good for them.

    Meanwhile, Johnson's speech will just remind the party why they were right to jettison him.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    edited August 28
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    Where does it say Daddy?
    It says spank me.
    It doesn't even specify male.
    It’s very hard to show this without being obscene. I’m trying not to annoy the mods!

    There are loads of photos like this




    So. Person has tattoo outlining their sexual preferences.
    And suddenly the 18-30 demographic agrees with your politics and sexual preferences?
    Presumably someone, somewhere has a "I like trans dick" tattoo, too.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,405
    edited August 28
    If woke is a direct threat to western civilisation, then we do need it properly defined. The fact that most people don’t know what it is or believe, apparently wrongly, that it is the new “political correctness gone mad” (largely because that’s how it’s reported in the right wing media) shows that those who do see anti-woke as being the defining struggle of the 21st century need to start explaining it a lot better and disassociating it from right wing hobby horses like Hard Brexit, climate change denial, sending refugees to Rwanda and opposition to working from home. If they don’t the war will be lost. You can’t win a battle for civilisation by alienating 50% or more of the population.

    Put another way, if people like Jacob Rees Mogg, Laurence Fox and Nigel Farage are the people making your case, you’re in very bad trouble.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,205

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
    You cannot eliminate anything by having a 'war on' it. Anti-woke warriors would be much better off developing a philosophy that they would like to see the world moving toward, and embracing and fighting for that.
    I think that most people who are 'woke sceptical' or 'anti woke' would say that the philosophy already exists - it is the rule of law, free speech, individual freedom, meritocracy, the enlightenment. It was never perfect but worked well for several hundred years. That needs to be restored, not junked in favour of some weird 'pseudo religious tribal mysticism'.

    As for tactics, well if rational engagement and persuasion doesn't work, then you may well end up resorting to dirtier and messier tactics; its the nature of war, when facing existential doom, you are forced in to it by circumstances.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,157
    Is woke the end of civilisation as we know it? I suspect not but any idea pushed to an extreme would probably be so. What is woke? It's essentially a modern form of egalitarianism. You can argue whether or not it really is about equality but that is what drives the true believers. As well as providing representation for the previously marginalised. We have been here before. What was the trade union movement about?

    Some people took it too the extreme of 'socialising the means of production' or 'to each according to ability to each according to need.' Was that civilisation ending when implemented? In some cases it probably was. If your only concern is equality and you have no interest in knowledge, freedom, scientific advancement, raising overall living standards, personal responsibility or a concept of justice separate to equality that may be where you end up.

    In the 1960s some radicals thought one solution revolution, sex equals rape, property is theft. Are these now all accepted norms.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
    You cannot eliminate anything by having a 'war on' it. Anti-woke warriors would be much better off developing a philosophy that they would like to see the world moving toward, and embracing and fighting for that.
    How about The Enlightenment, and judging people by their character not by their skin colour. That’s a good start
    yes, sure. Guess what financed all that lovely Enlightened thinking time?

    And that character not colour thing would be great, but the question is, how we get there. Stating it as an aspiration is not a plan.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    PB “going on about something the vast majority of the population don’t give a shit about” is the very definition of PB. It’s what we do. 24/7. It’s why we all come here

    But if we forced people to discuss our own obsessions I’m not sure people would be more interested in the merits of onshore turbines versus offshore, as against girls wearing Spank Me daddy tatts on their butts
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    Where does it say Daddy?
    It says spank me.
    It doesn't even specify male.
    It’s very hard to show this without being obscene. I’m trying not to annoy the mods!

    There are loads of photos like this




    So. Person has tattoo outlining their sexual preferences.
    And suddenly the 18-30 demographic agrees with your politics and sexual preferences?
    Presumably someone, somewhere has a "I like trans dick" tattoo, too.
    You know, you could just say “OK, in this instance you’re right”

    There’s no shame in it
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,996

    You cannot eliminate anything by having a 'war on' it.

    There's a video circulating of a Russian mercenary appearing on stage with a skull, supposedly of a Ukrainian soldier killed near Azovstal. He says that Russia is at war with the idea of Ukraine, so unfortunately Ukrainians have to die.

    Viewer discretion advised:

    https://twitter.com/den_kazansky/status/1563753741697916928
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,269
    Carnyx said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    Well, thanks @Malmesbury for the interesting debate on the big issue of the day but it seems PB is now going on it’s usual insane boat trip along the Upper Crackpot about something the vast majority of the population don’t give a shit about. I’m off to lose badly at Magic: The Gathering.

    You want crackpot?

    How about this for an instant energy supply?

    You detonate nuclear devices underground at a steady rate. The resulting hot rock is used to generate electricity.

    Side benefits - in the madman’s checkers theory of nuclear deterrence, we’d be way out in front.

    “Fuck your threats. We nuke ourselves, every 20 minutes. For shits and giggles.”

    #TellerSaidThisIsABitEdgy
    That would only make sense, on a guess, if those were fusion devices with lithium deuteride - else you might as well plonk the fuel in a fission reactor. And how does one get the working fluid through a heat exchanger which is being nuked repeatedly??
    Some multistage designs are startlingly efficient. The U.K. 2 stage primary is fascinating just by itself.

    No shortage of fuel - just do one of Ted Taylor’s ideas - line a shot cavern with slabs of natural uranium. The result would be hundreds of tons of plutonium. Watch the configuration… or then again, that might be a real lunatic idea. A molten fuel plutonium reactor…
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,405
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    Where does it say Daddy?
    It says spank me.
    It doesn't even specify male.
    It’s very hard to show this without being obscene. I’m trying not to annoy the mods!

    There are loads of photos like this



    So. Person has tattoo outlining their sexual preferences.
    And suddenly the 18-30 demographic agrees with your politics and sexual preferences?
    Presumably someone, somewhere has a "I like trans dick" tattoo, too.


    They’re not tattoos, are they? They look like spray on things that’ll wash off in no time. In other words, not indelible statements but temporary gestures designed to shock.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,627
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    PB really doesn’t understand Woke

    Which renders this whole thread pointless

    No, it just means that we don't agree with your sub-GBNews level insights on the subject.

    Ever feel that you are too old for the modern world?
    Well, I understand all of this a lot better than PB. That’s just a fact

    PB is so stupid about Woke it thought girls with “spank me Daddy” tattooed on their arses are Woke

    It really ain’t. This stuff enrages the Woke
    In all seriousness @Leon is right. Whenever this comes up, it reveals that (with some exceptions) posters are still living in a 1990s/early 2000s paradigm, where we are moving gradually forward towards 'equality' and 'harmony' by embracing diversity and BLM/woke whatever is just part of that. This paradigm is very seductive in its simplicity and it seems to be very difficult to talk people out of it. Fair enough. In the end, people can and should think and believe whatever they want.

    People who start on the path of persuasion usually end up seeing "woke" as an existential danger to civilisation and something that has to be fought, referring to it as a mind virus etc. I've observed this happen to a lot of people over the last 3-4 years: Laurence Fox, James Lindsay etc. People like Brett Weinstein describe woke as a civilisation ending moment, and they may well turn out to be right. Brett Weinstein may be disliked and he has made some mistakes, but he is not an idiot.

    I don't think it really helps anyone for this to turn in to a war whereby people have to choose sides, but I can see that it a rational choice to decide that if you see the phenomenon as 'civilisation ending' project, and you have no success at all in engaging people on the problems and dangers associated with it, then you just conclude that it has to be fought by any means possible. Such is the process of radicalisation.

    The last point is the one that Douglas Murray has been continuously warning about, and correctly so. The greatest danger of woke is that it prompts a tyrannical majoritarian response. Observing the values and behaviours of ordinary people, and how far away they are from elites who espouse much of this stuff, I think there is a lot to fear in this respect.

    That’s very eloquent and exactly right

    And you describe my journey perfectly. I first got interested in Wokeness a few years ago just for the laughs. It seemed so bizarre. These crazy new words. Intersectionality. Heteronormative. Critical Race Theory

    I presumed it was another version of “political correctness gone mad” - well meaning but with daftness at the extreme

    However the more I read and saw, the more alarmed I became. And yes, I now see it as a potential threat to our entire civilisation. The end of the Enlightenment.

    It sounds hyperbolic but when you see what is happening to American education the danger is obvious. Merit and logic are being attacked. “Math is racist”

    It’s almost too surreal to believe (and that might be part of the problem). But it is real
    You cannot eliminate anything by having a 'war on' it. Anti-woke warriors would be much better off developing a philosophy that they would like to see the world moving toward, and embracing and fighting for that.
    How about The Enlightenment, and judging people by their character not by their skin colour. That’s a good start
    Sounds OK to me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,495
    edited September 15
    Said it before, culture war stuff adds spice to a campaign but you don't want it as the full meal.

    I think the Tories know that hence going for broke (literally) on a high spend low(er) tax approach.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,408
    edited September 15
    deleted
This discussion has been closed.